Ravi Sharma v. Ut Of Chandigarh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 1.
CRM-M-3692-2025 RAVI SHARMA ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UT OF CHANDIGARH ....Respondent(s) 2.
RANJIT SINGH ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UT OF CHANDIGARH ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present:
Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Munish Bansal, A.P.P. U.T. Chandigarh.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) By way of this common order, aforementioned two petitions are being decided together, as both of them have arisen out of one FIR. 1.
These petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District
1. Ravi Sharma (in CRM-M-3692-2025) 24.09.2024 140(3), 140(4), 308(4), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS Sector 36 Chandigarh
2. Ranjit Singh (in CRM-M-59919-2024)
2.
On 28.01.2025 in CRM-M-3692-2025, following order was passed:- '1.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 140(4), 308(4), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, in FIR No. 200, dated 24.09.2024, registered at Police Station Sector-36, District Chandigarh, during the pendency of trial.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused Ranjit Singh are that a person namely; Manish Bangale resident of State of Maharashtra was kidnapped by them and was detained in car. On getting signal from the alleged car, constable-Surender Kumar alongwith Constable-Sandeep, who were on patrolling duty, followed the said car and succeeded in nabbing the accused, therefore, both the accused and the detained person disclosed their identity. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that alleged detained person namely; Manish Bangale is infact a criminal in the State of Maharashtra, against whom several cases are registered. Counsel further submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner had called said Manish Bangale from Maharashtra to hack the bank account of some account holders and then to tranfer the amount in their accounts.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondent/U.T. Chandigarh, prays for some time to confirm the averments raised by the petitioner and to file a status report in regard to the investigation.
5.
List on 03.03.2025.'
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that as a matter of fact, no such offence as alleged, ever happened and a false case has been planted by the Chandigarh police without there being any basis. During the course of interrogation, nothing material has been recovered from possession of the petitioner(s) except of three mobile phones, one laptop and a car, which belongs to Ravi Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-36922025).
Till date, it is not the case of the prosecution that from the mobile phones and the laptop recovered from the petitioners' possession, any such data has been collected, which may constitute the offence warranting police action. Also, submits that petitioner(s) being inside jail since 25.09.2024, may be released on bail.
4.
On the other hand, status report dated 28.02.2025 ( in CRMM-3692-2025) by way of affidavit of Anurag Daru, IPS SDPO South West, U.T. Chandigarh, has been filed by learned State counsel in Court today, same is taken on record.
Custody certificate(s) dated 03.03.2025 have also been filed in both the cases, same are also taken on record. However, there is no denial that investigation qua both the petitioner(s) is over, challan has been submitted and after submission of final report, charges have also been framed.
5.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) by observing that petitioner(s) are inside jail for the period of last more than 05 months and investigation is complete, their incarceration for an indefinite period would not be of any help to the prosecution. 6.
In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner(s), and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner(s). 7.
Consequently, prayer for grant of bail, made in these petition(s), is allowed. Petitioner(s) are ordered to be released on bail,
subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds by each one of them, 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(s) shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
9.
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.
10.
Petition(s) stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) March 03, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No