Gobinda @ Govinda v. State Of Punjab

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.45 dated 01.02.2022 under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC (Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of BNS, 2023) and Section 25(8) of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.

Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having planned a robbery, for which the police had received secret information. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage; petitioner being in custody for the last 04 months and 15 days and being on bail in some cases. 5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious

and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."