Ranjit Singh @ Jaggu v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M No. 46631 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 46631 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.5.2018 ...
Ranjit Singh @ Jaggu ................Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab ...
H. S. Madaan, J.
This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner Ranjit Singh @ Jaggu, an accused in FIR No. 113, dated 21.6.2017, for an offence under Section 379-B IPC, registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga.
Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that the criminal machinery was set into motion by complainant Ms. Shama Goyal w/o Charat Kumar Goyal, r/o Ahuja Street, Near Jain Mandir, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, aged about 33 years, who in her statement made to the police on 21.6.2017 stated that on the said day, she alongwith her daughter Gauri, had gone to her parental house, near Chamber Road and in the evening, when she alongwith her daughter was going on a cycle-rickshaw to Bastra Boutique,
CRM-M No. 46631 of 2017 -2Mohalla Kishanpura and the rickshaw was near DN Model School Street, at about 6.45 P.M., a Pulsar motorcycle, black in colour, came from behind, having three riders in the age group of 18-25 having thin built. The person sitting on the motorcycle in the middle snatched purse/bag of the complainant which was of black colour. The complainant fell down from cycle-rickshaw in the process and suffered injury on her arm. The purse/bag contained a mobile phone, make Samsung, having two sim cards, Rs.40,000/- currency notes, FDR of UCO bank, Moga, passbook, cheque book, a pair of ear-rings and other documents; total articles were of value of more than Rs.90,000/-. She stated that she could identify the motorcycle riders if brought before her. On the basis of that statement, formal FIR was recorded at Police Station City South, Moga.
During the course of investigation, accused Ranjit Singh alongwith his co-accused Jagtar Singh and Gagandeep Singh were arrested on 23.6.2017 and motorcycle make Pulsar having registration No.PB-29L-6289. was recovered. During interrogation currency notes of value of Rs.10,000/- snatched from the complainant were recovered from accused Ranjit Singh. Currency notes were also recovered from Gagandeep Singh. Remaining snatched articles were recovered from petitioner Ranjit Singh. He had moved an application for grant of regular bail, before the Court of Sessions, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, who vide order dated 27.9.2017 dismissed the same, as such he has approached this Court for grant of similar relief, which request is being opposed by the State
CRM-M No. 46631 of 2017 -3counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, besides going through the record.
The very fact that after being arrested, motorcycle used in the incident was recovered from the possession of accused alongwith his co-accused. A part of currency notes snatched from the complainant were also recovered from accused Ranjit Singh besides the other snatched articles. It was so in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. That goes to show his involvement in the incident. As per prosecution story when the purse/bag was snatched from the complainant who was going on a cycle-rickshaw, she had fallen down and had suffered injuries. With such type of incidents showing an alarming increase nowadays, it is difficult for normal people especially women to go out of their houses. A sense of fear psychosis is definitely there. Such type of elements need to be dealt with sternly and no leniency can be shown.
The trial against the accused is going on. His guilt shall be determined during the trial. Out of 11 PWs cited 5 PWs are stated to have been examined with next date of hearing fixed as 6.7.2018. Although one of the co-accused Gagandeep Singh is stated to have been granted regular bail by the trial Court, but role of the petitioner in the incident is more serious and most of the snatched articles were recovered from him. Therefore, no ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner is made out.
The petition stands dismissed.
CRM-M No. 46631 of 2017 -4However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
( H.S. Madaan ) 25.5.2018 Judge chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No