High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12522/2020allowed

Parmod Kumar@ Modi @ Ram v. State Of Punjab

2020-07-03Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: - 03.07.2020 Parmod Kumar @ Modi @ Ram ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) This petition has been taken for hearing through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.190 dated 25.07.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2019 onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the challan has already been

-2presented and therefore, keeping in view the allegations alleged against the petitioner as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, he be released on regular bail.

Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by learned State counsel today and the same is taken on record. Learned State counsel states that the allegations alleged against the petitioner are that he obtained the appointment in Army on the basis of forged documents and the conduct of the petitioner is such that it does not entitle him for the grant of benefit of regular bail. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Jagga Singh, does not dispute that the challan has already been presented on 02.03.2020.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

It is not disputed that petitioner is in custody for the last more than six months and the challan has already been presented. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, in case granted the concession of bail, will influence the witnesses. Further, keeping in view the present situation of Covid-19 pandemic and also the fact that the trial is likely to take time, petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, subject to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

-3It is also directed that if it is found that the petitioner is trying to influence the witnesses, in any way, the respondent-State will be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of bail. However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

Present petition stands allowed accordingly.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) July 03, 2020 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?