← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/31662/2024allowed

Ranjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2024-09-06Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 06.09.2024   ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

 

 

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG Punjab.

***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 16.03.2024 279, 427, 419, 420, 465, 471, 473, 170, 171 IPC;

(later on 472 IPC added and 473 IPC deleted) Civil Lines, Amritsar no. 2), Mo 2.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2024 and after the completion of investigation, challan has already been presented in the Court

-2and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time, hence, prayed for grant of bail.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the short reply dated 29.07.2024 filed by the State has assailed these arguments by submitting that the petitioner had impersonated as a police officer by producing fake identity and fake visiting cards, which were recovered from her car, as such, she does not deserve the concession of bail. . 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that admittedly, the petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2024, on the allegation of having impersonated as a police officer and recovery of identity card mentioning herself as Inspector Ramandeep Randhawa was effected. After the completion of investigation, challan has already been presented in the Court. The criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.

6.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Jude on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner.

-37.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

8.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 06.09.2024 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No