Jeeto v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7061-2022 Date of Decision:-10.05.2022 JEETO ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH Present:- Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case having FIR No.148 dated 3.10.2014 registered under Sections 399, 402 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha District Patiala.

As per the prosecution version FIR in the present case was registered against Sheelo, Charno, Jasbir Kaur, Hansa and petitioner-Jeeto on the basis of secret information wherein it was alleged that all of them were involved in snatching of gold chains/bangles from the ladies and men and they used to target crowded places in the area of Punjab and Haryana. There were also allegations against them that they used Alto car No.PB-08CG-2115 to commit the aforesaid snatching and at that time they were present in area of Civil Hospital, Nabha to distribute snatched jewellery among themselves.

GAURAV SOROT 2022.05.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-7061-2022 The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 21.12.2021 after getting her production warrants, as at that time the petitioner was lodged in jail. As stated by the State counsel no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who is presently facing trial in the instant case.

The State counsel while opposing the present petition submitted that the petitioner is hardened criminal and is facing numbers of other criminal cases of the similar nature.

Admittedly, the co-accused who faced trial in the present case, have already been acquitted. At that time the police failed to arrest the petitioner but later on she was arrested in December, 2021 by getting her production warrants. Now the trial is going on and it will take time for termination of the trial. In view of the above, no purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any longer period. 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 her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. ( KARAMJIT SINGH) 10.05.2022 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2022.05.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document