High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/9203/2020allowed

Gursharanjit Singh @ Sona v. State Of Punjab

2020-03-06Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9203-2020 Date of decision:6.3.2020 GURSHARANJIT SINGH @ SONA .....Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Jaiteshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, 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.06 dated 16.1.2019 at Police Station Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib under Sections 379B, 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 later on.

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.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has GAURAV SOROT 2020.03.06 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-9203-2020 falsely been implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR and came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of statement of ExSarpanch, who had allegedly seen him.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner had earlier been involved in four other cases, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has however submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars since 13.2.2019.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has clarified that the petitioner infact stands acquitted in 2 FIRs out of the aforesaid 4 FIRs, which had been earlier lodged against the petitioner.

6. 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.

7. 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.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 6.3.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2020.03.06 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document