Raman @ Ramandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32583 of 2017 Date of decision: 21.11.2018 Raman @ Ramandeep Singh ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

*** Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Raman @ Ramandeep Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.195 dated 24.7.2015 registered under Sections 341, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, added subsequently, at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur during pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas he was not involved. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner was armed with pistol along with co-accused and fired upon the injured whereas the co-accused gave him beatings. Learned counsel further submits that version of the complainant regarding co-accused has been found false during investigation and injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body as per medical record. The petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2017. Only injuredcomplainant has been examined and now the case is fixed for consideration NEETU RANI 2018.11.22 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Criminal Misc. No. M-32583 of 2017 .....

of application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also submits that the trial may take long time to conclude as in case, the aforesaid application is allowed then it will be a case of de-novo trial. Learned counsel also submits that in other two cases, the petitioner is on bail.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period as well as stage of trial. Learned State counsel has also admitted that the injured-complainant has been examined.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2017; Complainant-injured has been examined; application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is still pending and in case, the same is allowed, then it would be a case of de-novo trial; the trial may take long time to conclude; no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Raman @ Ramandeep Singh) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

21.11.2018 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No NEETU RANI 2018.11.22 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh