Makhan v. State Of Punjab

-1CRM-M-2020 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2020 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.04.2025 Makhan ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ritesh K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

*** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral) This is a petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in case bearing FIR No.54 dated 12.06.2024 under Sections 379-B, 411, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.
  The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2024, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused came on a motor cycle and snatched a purse containing Rs.1050/- and a copy of aadhar card of the complainant.  3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2024 and is in custody since then. He further contends that he is facing trial and is in custody for the last more than 10 months. He further contends that out of 08 witnesses, only 02 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined so far.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail by way of filing custody certificate dated 29.04.2025 and submits that the petitioner is Sonia Puri 2025.04.30 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-2020 of 2025 involved in one more case. However, he does not refute the fact that out of 08 witnesses, only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for a period of 10 months and 16 days. Only two witnesses out of total 08 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined so far and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9.

It is however, made clear that in case during his bail, the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

30th April, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.04.30 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document