Upinder Kumar Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.08.2023 Upinder Kumar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :
Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38, dated 17.02.2020, registered under Sections 304, 323 & 34 IPC at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana.
2.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years and more than 6 months. There is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant arose when food was demanded by the petitioner and on refusal thereof, allegedly the son of the complainant was pushed from the first floor after giving beatings by the petitioner and co-accused, who has been granted regular bail by this Court, Annexure P-2. Charges have been framed on 07.09.2021. However, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.
3.
The custody certificate dated 07.08.2023 has been filed by learned
-2State counsel. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 2 years, 6 months and 5 days.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner of having pushed the son of the complainant and on account of fall, he had succumbed to the injuries. He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case, co-accused has been granted bail and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 5.
Heard.
6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years, 6 months and 5 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused has been enlarged on bail; charges stand framed on 07.09.2021, however only 2, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, have yet been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
7.
As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to him not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i).
The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii).
The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
(iv). The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which
-3he is suspected of.
(v).
The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi). The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii). The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
(viii).The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix). The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 8.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
9.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 08.08.2023 Ankur Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No