Mohammed Zahid v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-32912 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:27.9.2016 Mohammed Zahid

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.19 dated 11.2.2013 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326-B, 452, 323, 201, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station City-I, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. Police record is also available.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondentState and have gone through the record. Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.09.28 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-32912 of 2016 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Mohammed Zahid was on bail during trial. He absented on 3.1.2015, but one Mohammed Sahid impersonated him, qua which a separate complaint was filed by the Court. It has been further stated that Mohammed Zahid has failed to turn up and was declared as proclaimed offender on 21.3.2015. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the petitioner has been in custody and has been brought on production warrant as he was arrested in other case. The present petitioner is in custody for a long period and the trial of the case will take long time. The petitioner is not required for interrogation or investigation purposes. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

September 27, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.09.28 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh