Peter Masih v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 02.07.2025 Peter Masih . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sushma Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Peter Masih 86 13.07.2023 406, 420 of IPC and Kartarpur Jalandhar Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations an amount of Rs.31.00 lakhs had been taken by the petitioner and his other coaccused. However, as per the transactions in the Bank account of the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs has been transferred. Further submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely; Sakattar Singh Bhullar, has already been granted concession of regular bail. Besides, after completion of investigation, final report has already been

- 2 - submitted and process of recording of statements of the witnesses has just started, as out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far. Therefore, conclusion of trial shall take considerable time. 3.

Counsel also points out petitioner is inside jail since 20.09.2025 and the offence is triable by the Court of Ld. Magistrate, therefore, further custody of the petitioner will not be of any use for the prosecution, more for the reason that after completion of investigation, challan has already been filed.

Therefore, counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

4.

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance and submits that petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature. However, there is no denial that in the said case, petitioner has already been granted concession of bail. Apart this, learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute any of the factual contentions addressed by the petitioner's counsel.

5.

After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and carefully perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, similarly situated co-accused, i.e., Sakattar Singh Bhullar, has already been granted concession of bail and culmination of trial shall take considerable time, this Court deems it appropriate to consider all aspects of the matter.

6.

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here-above, I deem it

- 3 - appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. 7.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

9.

The observation made here-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 10.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 02, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No