High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12726/2020dismissed

Rahul Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2020-06-26Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

CRM-M-12726-2020 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12726-2020 Decided on : 26.06.2020 Rahul Kumar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

Due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.30 dated 09.02.2015 registered under Sections 395 and 427 IPC (Section 395 IPC was added late on while Section 392 IPC was deleted) at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is a case of false implication as the FIR in question was got registered against unknown persons. He further contends that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the instant case and he was nominated as an accused on the basis of an extra judicial confession made by a co-accused. He also contends that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.03.2015 and all the co-accused have since been granted bail by this SONIA BURA 2020.06.26 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CRM-M-12726-2020 -2Court.

Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, has apprised this Court that the petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2015 after the registration of the FIR in question. Thereafter he was released on regular bail by the trial Court. However, the petitioner jumped bail subsequently. Not only this, the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents as there are several other criminal cases registered and pending against him.

Heard.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it a fit to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner was nominated as an accused on the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused, however, his involvement in other criminal cases reflects to his criminal antecedents, which does not warrant acceptance of his prayer for the grant of the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE 26.06.2020 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable :

No SONIA BURA 2020.06.26 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh