Sujjad Hussain @ Sajad Hussain v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-25519 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 06, 2016 Sujjad Hussain alias Sajad Hussain

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Shivali, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.8 dated 02.02.2016 under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secret Act, 1923, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 63, 65 and 68A of the IT Act registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in the present case, challan has already been presented. The charges have already been framed. The Vineet Gulati 2016.10.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-25519 of 2016 -2allegations in the FIR are serious in nature. Though, the present petitioner is not named in the FIR but during investigation his involvement has also been found. As per the prosecution version, the main accused is Irshad Ahmad against whom the allegations are that he has links with the secret agency of ISI of Pakistan and he visited Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh etc. and after clicking photographs of area of Indian Army, sensible areas and area of Air Base, provided to the ISI. Learned State counsel argued that present petitioner is relative of Irshad Ahmad and helped him in visiting various places and money has been deposited in his account on regular basis, though the petitioner alleges to be a labourer.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, I do find it a fit case, where petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of regular bail.

October 06, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.10.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh