Swaranjit Singh @ Motu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-21.02.2023 SWARANJIT SINGH @ MOTU ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.-

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH -.- Present:- Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, AAG, Punjab.

-.- KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) This order will dispose of bail application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case having FIR No.61 dated 1.6.2015 registered under Sections 395 IPC at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot. As per the allegations recorded in the FIR, complainant-Jagjit Singh stopped his truck near Fauji Hotel to take tea and thereafter he started checking tyres of his truck, in the meanwhile, 6 unidentified youngmen came there in an Innova car along with 2 persons on a motorcycle and all of them armed with different weapons and they started threatening the

( 2 ) complainant and demanded money from him and one of them who was called as Monu by his companions snatched `5,000/- from the pocket of the complainant and when the complainant raised alarm, all of them fled away from there.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and is in custody for the last 1 year and 3 months and all the other accused are already enlarged on bail by different Courts and that it will take considerable time for the trial to conclude. So prayer is made that the petitioner be released on regular bail. The instant petition is contested by the State counsel, who submits that the petitioner along with his companions snatched `5,000/- from Jagjit Singh and that the trial is going on. However, the State counsel has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and 3 months and that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and further only 4 witnesses are examined out of cited prosecution witnesses till date. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

Admittedly the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which is relating to snatching of `5,000/- from the complainant by 8 unidentified persons. The petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and 3 months but it will take time for the trial to conclude as till date only 4 PWs have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. So no purpose is going to be served by prolonging judicial custody of the petitioner for any longer period.

( 3 ) Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

( KARAMJIT SINGH) 21.02.2023 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No