Ram Lal Numberdar v. State Of Punjab

-1242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 28.02.2024 Ram Lal Numberdar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. K.B.S.Mann, Advocate for the complainant.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.46 dated 24.02.2023 under Sections 420, 120-B, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines District Bathinda. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that after the withdrawal of the previous petition wherein similar relief had been sought on 11.12.2023, not only had the challan been presented but charges had also been framed. Learned counsel submits that the case is now fixed for recording of prosecution evidence. It has also been submitted that the only role attributed to the petitioner is of

-2having identified co-accused Varinderpal Singh and Maninderjit Singh, who entered into agreement to sell the land in dispute to the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that in a Magisterial trial once the investigation is complete, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, more so, since as many as 18 witnesses had been cited by the prosecution, and the trial would thus, take considerable time to conclude.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jagjit Singh, has submitted that the petitioner was an active participant in the crime in question. The petitioner had not only identified the accused but also forged certain documents; he had also made the complainant talk with the impersonators with respect to the deal, which was struck qua the property in question. Learned State counsel has, however, not disputed the stage of trial. 4.

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

5.

The petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2023 in a Magisterial trial. The investigation in the case in hand is complete as charges also stand framed.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the

-3petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

28.02.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No