High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/9952/2022allowed

Gurjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2022-07-28Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9952-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2022 GURJIT SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Munish Raj chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.402 dated 13.08.2021, registered under Sections 379-B, 411, 34 IPC, at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with two other accused persons, has falsely been involved in the present case; that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.08.2021 and that, as far as another FIR No.367 dated 24.07.2021 under Section 379-B IPC is concerned, the petitioner has been named in the said FIR, after his arrest in the present FIR and he is on bail. He further submits that coaccused, namely, Amritpal Singh, has already been granted the concession of bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala vide order dated 02.07.2022 and that the alleged recovery had already been effected from the petitioner.

AMAN JAIN 2022.07.29 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-9952-2022 (O&M) -2Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the petitioner along with co-accused, namely, Amritpal Singh and Harjit Singh @ Happy have snatched mobile phone from Rinku and that the said mobile phone along with SIM card was recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, there are two more FIRs registered and/or pending against the petitioner and that post presentation of the challan, the charge(s) is yet to be framed and prosecution evidence is yet to commence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 14.08.2021. Coaccused has already been enlarged on bail. In another case registered and/or pending against the petitioner, he is on bail. Charge(s) is yet to be framed and prosecution evidence is to commence. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 28.07.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.07.29 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment