Ram Lal And ANR. v. State Of Punjab






   
   



!" "#$%$ &  '

('



 



 

  
 

  ) *'+
 ++  

  

 ! "



  
 

 #!$    ++ ,'-. /0 % &

  

 

 "

 '() 

*    *  "



 

 

+,
 -%- 

%.%--/%) 

 "

 (/- %'0 %') (-(,* 



  "

  

 #

"

1 
  - It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody for about ten months and fifteen days. He submitted that it is a case where even as per the prosecution story and the FIR, there is no specific role attributable to both the petitioners and they were only shown to be present on the spot. He submitted that three prosecution witnesses including the complainant and eye witness have been examined and all the three prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. He submitted that the complainant has

 

resiled from his earlier version. He further submitted that the other similarly situated co-accused namely, Kuldeep Singh, who is exactly at parity with the present petitioners, has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.05.2023 vide CRM-M-15661 of 2023 (Annexure P-8). He submitted that earlier when the petitioner was admitted on bail, he had jumped the bail and was declared as a proclaimed offender but thereafter he was arrested. He submitted that the mere fact that for some time he remained proclaimed offender and thereafter arrested cannot disentitle both the petitioners for grant of regular bail in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case especially in view of the fact that earlier the petitioners were declared innocent by the police. 3.

On the other hand,   
  

     #!$   has submitted that so far as the custody period of both the petitioners is concerned, the same is correct and it is also correct that the other co-accused namely Kuldeep Singh who has already been extended the benefit of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-8 is at parity with both the petitioners. 2 

  

  

 



 "

 "   



 "

    4  4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

The petitioners have already faced incarceration for about ten months and fifteen days. As per the allegations against the petitioners, they were present on the spot but no specific role has been attributable to the petitioners. The other co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh who is stated to be at parity with both the petitioners, has been extended the benefit of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-8. So far as the objection raised by learned State



counsel with regard to the declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders is concerned, the same cannot become a ground for denial of bail to both the petitioners in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, whereby no specific role has been attributable to both the petitioners and particularly in view of the fact that the other co-accused who is exactly at parity with both the petitioners, has been extended the benefit of regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 6.

In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is allowed. Both t

 

   

  

5

4

"

 "

   6

4

 "

  

 

 *  6# 4

" "

 7 2 3

4

 





  



8

     

 

"  4

     "  

  - ++0   1/2 ,

   

   :

6

 

 :

6