← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37935/2015dismissed

Narain Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-11-19Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain2 pages

KAPIL 2015.11.26 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37935-2015 [1] *** In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M-37935-2015 Date of Decision:19.11.2015 Narain Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

***** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.201 dated 08.05.2010, under Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 472 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08.05.2010 from an abandoned Maruti car, one gas cylinder, one steel jug tied with plastic cord, one detonator connected with yellow wire, two 9 volt batteries and wire were recovered. During investigation of the case petitioner was

KAPIL 2015.11.26 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37935-2015 [2] *** named by his co-accused Sanjiv Singh in his disclosure statement. On the basis of the same, petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.02.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, the co-accused who had faced the trial have been acquitted by the trial Court.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature.

In the present case, although, petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2013 and the co-accused who had faced the trial has since been acquitted by the trial Court but the fact remains that three criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and in the said cases petitioner is not on bail. Petitioner has been acquitted in 11 cases as is evident from Annexure P-2.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

November 19, 2015 (SABINA) kapil JUDGE