Sarabjit Singh Alias Saba v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-5538-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.02.2025 Sarabjit Singh @ Saba .....Pe22oner Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The peoner is seeking regular bail by way of peon filed under Secon 483 of the Bharaya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Secon 439 Cr.P.C.) in case FIR No.5 dated 18.02.2021 registered under Secons 302, 379, 411, 404, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC at Police Staon Government Railway Police, District Pathankot. 2.
It is his third peon. The first peon bearing No.CRM-M59376-2022 was dismissed by this Court on 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-3). Second peon bearing No.CRM-M-157-2024 was dismissed on 10.04.2024 (Annexure P-4).
3.
It is contended by learned counsel that ever since the dismissal of the earlier two peons, there is material change in circumstances, as Rajan, the brother of the deceased, who was projected to prove the last seen theory has already been examined and that there are glaring discrepancies regarding the present peoner being the last seen with the deceased. It is further contended by learned counsel that peoner is behind bars for the last approximately 02 years 04 months and that peoner is being implicated solely on the basis of last seen together theory.
4.
Noce of moon.
5.
Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab accepts noce on behalf of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.02.05 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-5538-2025 (O&M) respondent-State and has filed the custody cerficate of the peoner and opposed the bail peon.
6.
A;er considering submissions of learned counsel for the peoner, this court does not find merit in the peon. 7.
Perusal of the order dated 19.07.2023 Annexure P3, whereby the earlier peon was dismissed by this Court would reveal that it was specifically noced that as per the evidence collected during invesgaon, peoner was last seen with the deceased. Besides, peoner was found to have sold the mobile of the deceased to co-accused Tarun Kumar. It was also noced that in case death of Vishal had occurred due to injuries sustained in the rail accident, his mobile must have been broken and in that eventuality, how the mobile phone of the deceased had come to the present peoner Sarabjit Singh @ Saba, who had further sold it to Tarun Kumar and further, why the peoner had not informed the family members of deceased Vishal, in case a rail accident had taken place. 8.
Thus, it is apparent that the case is not dependent solely on the last seen theory, as has been projected by counsel for the peoner. 9.
Apart from the abovesaid circumstances which were noced by this Court, it is further to be noced that Rajan, the brother of deceased Vishal has only been partly examined as evident from Annexure P-6, as his cross-examinaon was deferred on that date.
10.
Having regard to all the above circumstances but without commenng anything further on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the peoner. Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 05, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.02.05 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document