Rajbir Singh Alias Raju v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.08.2023 Rajbir Singh @ Raju ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :

Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY , J.

1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.184, dated 11.11.2022, registered under Sections 380, 436, 452, 427, 457, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last about eight months.There is a delay of about 1 day in lodging the FIR. He has been falsely implicated in this case on account a dispute that arose due to his daughter having eloped with the son of the complainant. Challan stands presented on 02.03.2023. Charges are yet to be framed. In all there are 14 prosecution witnesses. There is no other case against the petitioner. 3.

The custody certificate dated 05.08.2023, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 8 months and 4 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the specific

allegations have been leveled against the petitioner of setting on fire the articles lying in the house of the complainant. He is however unable to controvert the submissions regarding the stage of the case and his non-involvement in any other case.

5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months and 4 days; not involved in any other case; challan stands presented on 02.03.2023, however, charges have not been framed; there are 14 prosecution witnesses in the case; the trial is likely to take considerable time and thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, as such the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

7.

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to him not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i).

The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii).

The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv). The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v).

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi). The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii). The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to

the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(viii).The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix). The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 07.08.2023 Ankur Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No