Sandeep Singh Alias Shanty v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 30, 2025 Sandeep Singh @ Shanty ......Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), 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 Sandeep Singh @ Shanty s/o Satpal Singh 24.10.2024 S. 303 (2) of BNS, 2023 (S.

238 BNS added later on) Dirba Sangrur 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation against the petitioner is of stealing two Airtel Anjana Company RRUs with Sr. Nos. K9221300734 & K9224709791 alongwith accessories,

valuing Rs. 18,000/-, from the mobile tower of Airtel Company installed in village Samuran. Further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not been named by the complainant and there is delay of 22 days in lodging of the FIR. The petitioner is inside jail since 09.12.2024 and after completion of investigation final report/challan has been presented to the Court, but trial is yet to commence. There are no chances of early conclusion of trial. The co-accused - Jashandeep, has already been released on regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Also submits that the petitioner is aged about 25 years.

Thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3.

On the other hand, while opposing the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is also involved in several other criminal cases of similar nature. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that investigation has already been completed and the final report/challan has been submitted, but the trial is yet to start. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is inside jail since 09.12.2024. 4.

Considering all the submissions addressed by both the sides and noticing the fact that final report/challan has been submitted, but the trial is yet to start; and that petitioner is inside jail since 09.12.2024, I am of the view that liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed 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 30, 2025 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO