Ashu Verma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16014-2024 Date of decision: May 22nd, 2024 Ashu Verma .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.17 dated 22.02.2024 under Sections 379B/506 (Section 411 added later on) of the IPC registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.02.2024 for having been found in possession of stolen property (gold ornaments), which was allegedly snatched by the co-accused from the complainant while she had taken a lift from the co-accused. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was merely working as an employee in the jewellery store and he had no connection whatsoever with the prime accused in whose disclosure statement, he came to be arraigned as an accused in the present case. 3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Balwant Singh, has while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.22 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-16014-2024 -2counsel opposite, has not disputed the factual aspect of the role attributed to the petitioner. On further instructions, learned State counsel has submitted that investigation in the case at hand is complete as challan stands presented and the charges are likely to be framed on 30.05.2024.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

5.

The only role attributed to the petitioner is of having purchased the stolen property i.e. gold earrings, which were allegedly snatched by the prime accused from the complainant. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

6.

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.

May 22nd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.22 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh