High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/17270/2020disposed of

Nishan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-09-03Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin2 pages

203A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.17270 of 2020 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 03.09.2020 Nishan Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, DAG, Punjab ..

ALKA SARIN, J.: (Oral) Heard through video conferencing.

This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.08, dated 17.02.2020 under Sections 379-B, 411, 409, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Zira, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact the FIR itself was registered on the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner initially being the complainant of the FIR had stated that the petitioner was the Manager of RBL Finance Company and on the day of the occurrence was taking an amount of Rs.13,87,810/- to be deposited in the HDFC Bank. Three motorcycle borne unknown persons snatched the said amount from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that later on in connivance with the owners of the RBL Finance Company and under political pressure the police arrayed the petitioner as an accused after the investigation. PARKASH CHAND 2020.09.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.17270 of 2020 - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the orders dated 13.07.2020 passed in the case of the co-accused granting him bail in CRM-M No.16581 of 2020 titled: Satnam Singh vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M No.14471 of 2020 titled: Sagar vs. State of Punjab, decided on 16.06.2020.

Learned State counsel has informed the Court that though the challan has been presented the charges are yet to be framed in the present case. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the State that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered from the petitioner. Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the above and considering the existing situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein would be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The prosecution would always be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the same in any manner. (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 03.09.2020 parkash NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO PARKASH CHAND 2020.09.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document