Charanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-18462-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18462-2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 Charanjit Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC (483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in FIR No.89 dated 09.09.2022, under Sections 307, 353, 186, 427 IPC (Sections 304-A and 279 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Fattudhinga, District Kapurthala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been alleged that the petitioner instead of stopping at police nakka, broke the nakka and fled away. Thereafter, a dead body was found under the truck and offence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC were added. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody for the last seven months and 17 days. He further submits that charges have been framed on 01.02.2025 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel still further submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody during the pendency of trial. 3.

Notice of motion.

SONIA BURA 2025.04.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18462-2025 4.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence by breaking the nakabandi. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 07 months and 17 days. Learned State counsel further submits that the challan has been presented and charges have been framed.

5.

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

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 07 months and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 09.04.2025 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.04.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document