High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19919/2018dismissed

Ramandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-08-08Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-19919 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 08, 2018 Ramandeep Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.279 dated 29.07.2009 under Sections 307, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act (Section 302 IPC and Section 15, 16 and 17 of the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act added later on), registered at Police Station Tripari, District Patiala. Notice of motion.

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been in custody since 06.11.2014 and the trial will take time. VINEET GULATI 2018.08.09 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh From the record, especially the order passed by Court of

CRM No.M-19919 of 2018 -2Session, I find that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in this case on 12.07.2010 and he was arrested from Chennai Airport after issuance of open warrant of arrest and red corner notice, and he was having Nepal's identity card and also carrying passport of Nepal. Keeping in view the above facts, I find that if the petitioner is again released on bail, there is every chance of his absconding. Therefore, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case, where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

However, as the petitioner is stated to have been in custody since 06.11.2014 i.e. for the last more than 3 years and 9 months, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by giving short adjournments and if required, even day to day adjournments. The Investigating Officer/SHO concerned is directed to produce the witnesses before the trial Court at the earliest.

August 08, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.08.09 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh