Ajay Kumar @ Ajju v. State Of Punjab
! "#$# %& ' '
& ()'* *
!" #
$$$$$ * '
%
& ' (
)*+
, , (
-
( ( ./0 %%1 23 4+ *3+56
/
(, & )3*
/
(,
( '
( "
(
7 .8(-& '
, 23 242*
( ( (- (( :
*
6 (
./"
(
;
8
"
" " 78 ,
0
65%95<5%949 & ( "
'
= 2> 4+ 344;144
(( (
0 >2144>%>)4-" ( ;! "
? " ( -" ((
"("
0
(
( -
(- ((( 0 +>)>*99>)9
-
"( : /((
( (( (
"
"
((
0 ((
"(
(
"(( - "
-
(
((
"(+*4
"
"(
( ( ((
"( /
( ((
"
"
(
(
(
((
(
8
"
"
@- & '
.
((
((
("
((
# "(
( @- -
"
"
" /((
((
" -
-
"
"
("
(( "
@-
-
(
"
& (' (("
((
"(
(
( ((
"(
( ( /((
( "((
("
( /( ((
, (
, !
, 6- ) 244;5"
"(( ( = ( ,
(((
( (
((
" 444;5
)
/
( 21 242*(
(
,50 >+>*242*
;A
7 "(
./B 770 29 %%
( (
/
( "
:
" - (
0 7A5145C53331 ( )3*
/
(, "
./ 770 *1 49 %4 2422
( ( "
/
5 ( "
(
( ((
./0 %%1 23 4+ 2422
(
/
(
./
(
:
+ "
&23 242*'
A (
(
(( 23 %2 2422
42 242*
(
(- (- ( ( "(
"
/( 5
(
( , 4* 4* 242* ,5593+9352422
(
( (
( ( "
"" ( (
, @
.8(- 4* 4% 242*& : 2'
A (
((
,
( , (
( (
>
( (
(
( (
( (
(
" ( (
(
(
(
( (
./0 %21 *% %4
29
( " ( (
?"
( (
: "
&23 242*'D
(
((
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012(2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- EAs observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
(
:
( (
+
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book as well as the custody certificate of petitioner. 10.
In the instant case, the petitioner has inter alia alleged that he along with the other co-accused had snatched the car of complainant (Swift Dzire). It is also alleged that the total amount of material lying in the car, like complainant's phone, wallet containing an amount of Rs.4,200/-, Aadhaar Card, Driving License, P.A.N. Card and A.T.M. Card, was of around Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the reply filed on behalf of the State, the aforesaid allegedly stolen car was recovered in an abandoned condition. Concededly, the petitioner is in custody for a period of six months and twenty five days (as on 27.05.2023); investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented on 27.12.2022 and even charges have been framed on 02.02.2023 and the trial is going on, which is likely to take some time to
, conclude. Further, co-accused of the petitioner, namely Amit Kumar @ Mitu, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in CRM-M-57957-2022.
%%
: ( (
" ( (
("
, ((( (
;
; ( (( (
(
(
( (
"
"
"
( ((
;
; (
(, ((
(
"
((
(,
12.
"
(("
(
( ( & B
'
(;
( , ;/((B ;7 ?"
? = ((
(
((
? = "
; (
((
? =
"
!
"(( (
? =
?
"(( -
"(((
((
(
(( (
( ;? =
-
((
( (
%*
/
&
(' (( .:
7
&.
'
444;5
(,
"( (( ("
("
14.
0 :
((
(
(
%9
!
(
%>
(( ( &'
((( (
' ' . * / % F
- ;
;0 F
( ;0