Narinder Pal @ Ninderpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-9.12.2020 Narinder Pal @ Ninder Pal Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the complainant. (proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.124 dated 27.7.2020 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda under Sections 436, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sandeep Pathak, wherein it is alleged that he has his office on Kishori Ram Hospital road. It is alleged that he was acquainted with Narinder Pal (petitioner) as said Narinder Pal had been working in his office for about 11⁄2 years but he had been removed by the complainant about 6-7 months back and on account of which Narinder Pal

( 2 ) nursed a grudge against the complainant and had been threatening the complainant that he would set the complainant's office on fire. It is alleged that when the complainant was present in his house on 27.7.2020 some shopkeepers told him that his office had been set on fire and the complainant rushed to his office where he saw Narinder Kumar and his accomplices fleeing away from the spot.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is no credible evidence to show his complicity.

4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the entire incident has been recorded in the CCTV camera and as such involvement of the petitioner is clearly made out. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about four months and that challan already stands presented.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case especially that the challan already stands presented and the trial is yet to commence, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 6.

The aforesaid bail order shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of `40,000/- within a period of one month from today as an unconditional compensation to the complainant. The said compensation may be given by way of demand draft or be transferred directly in the bank

( 3 ) account of the complainant through RTGS or shall be deposited in the Trial Court. In case the aforesaid amount of `40,000/- is deposited in the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall release the same unconditionally in favour of the complainant. It is further clarified, in case the aforesaid payment is not made, the bail order shall stand cancelled.

9.12.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No