Vishal Sharawat @ Taddi v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-9000 of 2017 (O&M) Vishal Sharawat alias Taddi
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-12400 of 2017 (O&M) Deepak Kaushal
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(iii) CRM No.M-13337 of 2017 (O&M) Kevin Sushant alias Richi
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Date of Decision: August 01, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-9000 of 2017). Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Paras Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-12400 of 2017). Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-13337 of 2017).
CRM No.M-9000 of 2017 and connected petitions -2Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
All the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.34 dated 27.02.2013 under Sections 302, 307, 427, 506, 148, 120-B, 201, 336, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Mataur, District Mohali.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in the present case, prosecution evidence has already been closed in the year 2015 and since then, the case is fixed for defence evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that instead of completing the defence evidence, the accused are filing applications one after another to delay the disposal of the case. Earlier, at the time of filing the present petitions, one petition was pending for quashing of order dated 03.12.2016 passed on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by learned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in which proceedings were stayed. Today, vide separate order, that petition
CRM No.M-9000 of 2017 and connected petitions -3has already been dismissed by this Court. As the prosecution evidence is already complete and some of the defence witnesses have already been recorded and case is pending for defence evidence for the last about two years, therefore, no ground is made out for grant of bail at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners asked for parity as some coaccused have already been released on bail. On this argument, I find that at that time, proceedings were stayed by this Court and the accused had to produce the defence, therefore, bail was granted. Now, as the trial is complete, therefore, no ground is made out for grant of bail and there is no question of parity at this stage.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for grant of regular bail to the petitioners. Therefore, finding no merit in all the petitions, the same are dismissed. However, as the trial is pending since long and the accused are also in custody for a long period, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously, as early as possible. August 01, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No