Mohd Sultan @ Baggi Bijanwala v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-22928 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:10.8.2016 Mohd. Sultan alias Baggi Bijanwala

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.19 dated 11.2.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326-B, 452, 323, 201, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station City-I, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. Police record is also available.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondentState and have gone through the record. Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-22928 of 2016 [2] From the record, I find that the order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, shows that Mohd. Sultan alias Baggi Bijanwala was earlier on regular bail and was appearing in the trial, but he had been absented from the Court since 30.7.2015. As per this order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 22.4.2016, Mohd. Sultan alias Baggi Bijanwala was stated to have been in custody for the last about six months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the absence of the petitioner was not intentional as he was arrested in some other case. The petitioner is not required for interrogation or investigation purposes. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

August 10, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh