← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/30332/2020allowed

Harwinder Singh @ Sony v. State Of Punjab

2020-10-06Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri3 pages

Through Video Conference

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M-30332-2020 (O&M).

Decided on: October 06, 2020.

Harwinder Singh @ Sony .. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab .. Respondent * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI * * * PRESENT Mr.Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab..

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL ) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No.66 dated 19.4.2020, under Sections 379-B, 341, 411, 201 and 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Barnala, District Barnala. The allegations which are contained in the FIR are that an information was given by one Karamjit Singh who is complainant in the

present case that two persons had come to him and asked about the price of the onion and out of them one person who was petitioner namely Harwinder Singh @ Sony, was identified by him. It is further alleged in the FIR that suddenly they snatched Rs.28,000 from him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the the petitioner has been wrongly and illegally roped up in the present FIR. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.4.2020 and the investigation in the present case is already complete and the challan has been presented on 27.6.2020. He has further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner namely Harpreet Singh has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.9.2020 passed in CRM-M-25714-2020. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case till date and therefore, has prayed for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that it is a case of snatching of Rs.28,000 and on this ground, he has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. However, he has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel through video conference. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 27.4.2020 i.e. for the last more than 5 months and the investigation in the present case is complete and the challan has already been presented coupled

with the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that the allegation are pertaining to snatching of Rs.28,000/-, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I deem it fit and appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail. The present petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant only for the purpose of decision of present petition. October 06, 2020.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No