Sohan Singh @ Sonu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19711 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.7.2015 Sohan Singh @ Sonu .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks bail pending trial in FIR No. 13 dated 8.3.2015 under Sections 399/402 IPC (Sections 457/511/420/379/411/148/149 IPC were added later on), registered at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.

Notice to the Advocate General, Punjab.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Additional A.G. Punjab, accepts notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he is inside the jail for the last more than three months. He further submits that since even the charge has not been framed by the learned trial court so far, trial is likely to take long time. He prays for allowing the present petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from H.C.Gurmej Singh, submits that petitioner was apprehended with his co-accused. Deadly weapons were recovered AMIT KUMAR 2015.07.02 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-19711 of 2015 (O&M) from the co-accused of the petitioner. All the accused were together when they were apprehended. He further submits that the matter is serious in nature. He also submits since the challan has already been presented and the date of hearing before the learned trial court is fixed for today itself for framing of the charge, trial is not likely to take long time. He prays for dismissal of the petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, petitioner has not been found entitled for the concession of bail pending trial. It is so said, because petitioner was very much named in the FIR.

He was arrested with his co-accused. The matter is serious in nature. Investigation is already complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has also been filed. In view of the above and without commenting any further on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the rights of the either of the parties, no case for bail pending trial is made out. Dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present petition. Ordered accordingly.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 2.7.2015 Ak Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2015.07.02 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document