High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22108/2015allowed

Vir Singh @ Veeru v. State Of Punjab

2015-09-29Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M-22108 of 2015 Date of decision: 29.09.2015 Vir Singh @ Veeru ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes/No

2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes/No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. AG, Punjab for the respondent - State.

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner-Vir Singh @ Veeru for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.168 dated 04.08.2014 registered under Sections 307, 326, 336, 120-B, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR but no role has been attributed to him. He has been implicated on the basis of general allegations. The injured has been discharged from the hospital. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the present petitioner has been shown to be accompanied with co-accused, namely, Kewal, Happo, Vishal, Rajan, NEETU RANI 2015.10.06 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Criminal Misc. No. M-22108 of 2015 Raja, Harjit Singh and others but no specific injury has been attributed to him. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Hardyal Singh has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. No. M-25923 of 2015 and has been released on regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2015. The petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2014 and even a single witness has not been examined so far. The trial may take long time to conclude and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period but opposes grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that all persons were present and caused injuries to the injured. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents of the FIR.

As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of general allegations as neither he has been found to be armed with any specific weapon nor he has been attributed any injury. The petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2014 and even a single witness has not been examined so far. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Hardyal Singh, has been released on regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2015.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Vir Singh @ Veeru) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 29.09.2015 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE NEETU RANI 2015.10.06 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh