Sunil Kumar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-4973-2021 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4973-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2022 Sunil Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Dullat, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.129 dated 11.10.2020 at Police Station Meharban, District Ludhiana, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E IPC. 2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the petitioner on 11.10.2020 was found in possession of the counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/-. Subsequently upon his disclosure statement, he got recovered more currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- showing the face value of Rs.93,300/-.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that in any case since the petitioner as on date has been behind bars for substantial period of 1 year and 4 months and challan already stands presented, he deserves the concession of bail.

VANDANA YADAV 2022.02.17 17:26 I attest to the accuracy of this order

CRM-M-4973-2021 (O&M) 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner was caught red-handed while in possession of counterfeit currency notes, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner happens to be involved in 2 other cases for offences under NDPS Act and another case under Section 454 IPC and, as such, he does not deserves the concession of bail. It has also been informed that in the present case the charges have not been framed so far and that as many as 11 PWs have been cited.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case but while bearing in mind the nature of offences and the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars for substantial period of 1 year and 4 months and conclusion of trial likely to consume time inasmuch as the trial has not even commenced till date, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 17.02.2022 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) VY/Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No VANDANA YADAV 2022.02.17 17:26 I attest to the accuracy of this order