Balraj Singh @ Baja @ Luvjeet @ Luv v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-7020-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.2.2020 Balraj Singh @ Baja @ Luvjeet @ Luv ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Inderpreet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.0006 dated 16.1.2019 at Police Station Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib under Sections 379-B, 323, 201, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, wherein offences under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of Arms Act were deleted lateron.

2.

The allegations, as per FIR, are that the complainant had taken lift in a vehicle in which 4 persons were sitting and that the said persons instead of dropping the complainant at the place where he wished to be dropped, robbed him off valuables including a gold chain, a gold bracelet, a bag containing `2.20 lakhs cash etc.

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.02.24 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-7020-2020 (O&M) 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of statement of Ex-Sarpanch, who had allegedly seen him. 4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner had earlier been involved in two other cases, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than one year and till date only 2 PWs out of the cited 26 PWs have been examined.

5.

Having considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and without commenting anything as regards veracity of allegations levelled against the petitioner and while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than one year, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time.

6.

The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

24.2.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.02.24 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document