Arpit Thakur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 23, 2025 Arpit Thakur ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, 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 hereunder:- Name of Petitioner FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Arpit Thakur son of Veer Thakur 07.07.2024 S. 111 of BNS, 2023 and Ss.

25(7), 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Civil Lines, Amritsar Amritsar 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner are also the allegations against the co-accused, namely, Gobind Sharma and Karan Sharma. Both the said co-accused have already been granted the

concession of bail by this Court, vide order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed in CRM-M-64140-2024, titled as 'Gobind Sharma v. State of Punjab', and order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed in CRMM-55065-2024, titled as 'Karan Sharma v. State of Punjab'. Further submits that for no reason the petitioner has been kept behind bars, and culmination of the trial is likely to take considerable time.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel does not dispute the factual aspects, which have already been recorded in the bail orders of the co-accused, Gobind Sharma and Karan Sharma, dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) & 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), and also submits that final report has already been submitted, however, process of recording of evidence is yet to start. Even charges have not been framed. 4.

Looking at the aspect that co-accused, Gobind Sharma and Karan Sharma, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide orders dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) & 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), and finalization of the proceedings is likely to take considerable time, this Court does not find any special reason to keep the present petitioner inside jail for indefinite period.

5.

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. 6.

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.

7.

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

8.

The observation made hereinabove 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.

9.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 23, 2025 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO