← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/30905/2020dismissed

Ravinder Singh @ Sonu v. State Of Punjab

2020-10-05Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal2 pages

-1CRM-M-30905 of 2020 111IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30905 of 2020 Date of Decision: 05.10.2020 Ravinder Singh @ Sonu Jatt

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present:- Mr. Navjinder S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Case taken up through Video Conferencing.

The present petition, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is the second one through which the petitioner seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.94 dated 30.06.2020, registered under Sections 353, 186, 149, 332, 448 and 506 IPC at Police Station Model Town, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail through CRM-M-22736 of 2020 which petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2020 through the following order: - "1. Case is being taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.

2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court and to file a petition for regular bail before the learned trial Court RAVINDER SINGH 2020.10.07 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-30905 of 2020 with directions being issued to the learned trial Court to consider and decide the petition for regular bail, as expeditiously as possible.

3. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed for. In case, any petition for regular bail is filed before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court is directed to consider and decide the same, at the earliest possible." Thus, on 14.08.2020, the petitioner's prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail was pressed before this Court but finding this Court disinclined to agree learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought and got permission to withdraw the afore-referred petition with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and file a petition before that Court for regular bail.

It is the admitted position that as per the afore-referred order passed by this Court , after the passage of nearly one and a half months, the petitioner has not surrendered before the trial Court and that there is no change whatsoever of any circumstance after the withdrawal of the earlier petition filed by the petitioner seeking therein the same relief as in the present one. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Dismissed.

(DEEPAK SIBAL) October 05, 2020 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2020.10.07 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document