Robin Alias Roban v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 221 (PROCEEDINGS THROUGH HYBRID MODE) CRM-M-28162-2024 Date of decision: July 1st, 2024 Robin @ Roban .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.8 dated 24.01.2024 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset drawn the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner has been named in the FIR in question, however, he had no inkling that the Aadhaar Card and the jamabandi, which were used for furnishing surety, were forged documents. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had just accompanied the co-accused at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation in the case in hand is complete as challan stands presented, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-28162-2024 -2clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other criminal case much less a case of similar nature. Hence, his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose as he has now been in custody since 01.03.2024.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions from ASI Satpal Singh, has reiterated the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR in question. However, learned State counsel has not disputed the stage and status of the trial and also the factum of the petitioner not being involved in any other criminal case. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, the petitioner along with the co-accused, furnished copies of forged Aadhaar Card and jamabandi while furnishing bail bonds in FIR No.133 qua accused Ramesh. The petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2024 in a magisterial trial. The trial would take considerable time to conclude as none of the 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined till date.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 1st, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.01 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh