High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35468/2021allowed

Gurcharan Ram v. State Of Punjab

2022-12-08Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35468-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2022 GURCHARAN RAM ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. AS Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurlal Singh Dhillon, AAG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.71 dated 14.03.2021, registered under Sections 420, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D IPC, at Police Station Patran, District Patiala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of the present FIR, the alleged recovery was effected from the petitioner; that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.03.2021; that out of ten prosecution witnesses, only three have been examined so far and that as far as other cases registered and/or pending against the petitioner is concerned, he is on bail in the said cases. Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute his custody period. He, however, submits that from the petitioner, Rs.60,000/- was AMAN JAIN 2022.12.09 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-35468-2021 (O&M) -2recovered and thereafter, on his own disclosure statement, Rs.50,000/- and a printer was recovered from the shop. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender having criminal antecedents and thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.03.2021. Recovery has already been effected from the petitioner. In other cases registered against the petitioner, he is on bail, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner. Most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 08.12.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.12.09 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.