← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27461/2019allowed

Manjinder Singh @ Mani v. State Of Punjab

2019-09-16Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu2 pages

 

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRM M27461 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2019 Manjinder Singh @ Mani 5..Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab 5..Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU.

. Present: Mr.P.S. Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Multani, AAG, Punjab.

.   

    This is an application for preponing the date of hearing from 16.09.2019 to an early date.

As the main case is also listed today, the application for preponing the date has been rendered infructuous and is disposed off as such.

 Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 66 dated 25.03.2019 under Sections 384, 365, 419, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. As per prosecution case, an amount of Rs.700/ was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Contends that the petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2019; and after investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 27.05.2019; and now the case is fixed for consideration of charges on 30.09.2019. Also contends that there is no other criminal case and moreover on similar allegations, co RASHMI 2019.09.17 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 

  accused Vir Varinder Singh has already been granted the concession of bail pending trial by this Court on 22.07.2019. The above factual position is duly acknowledged by learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Rajinderpal Singh. Heard both sides and perused the paper book.

Since the investigation in the case is over and charges are yet to be framed and there is no other criminal case pending against him; thus, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in this case, on his furnishing adequate bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of CJM/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is clarified that observations made above may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with learned trial Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. September 16, 2019 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned:

Yes/ No.

Whether Reportable:

Yes/No.

   RASHMI 2019.09.17 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document