Baldev Singh @ Happy @ Munshi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.04.2022 BALDEV SINGH @ HAPPY @ MUNSHI




















STATE OF PUNJAB 
 



   

    
 
 
 

  Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG Punjab.

    



 












  
 
!"

#$%

&'&()&)*
   

+
,%$ -**
-.'
-.%
-.(
-%*
-%,

*)&/0
"1


+
0  2  
0 
3 
  






 


  



4

  


+
-%,

-**
"15



6
  
 &'&()&)*




6

 

4
 1 
0


1 

*$&*)&))




6

6

 
 



4

),&*)&))

 



 

 
 

 
  

),7)-&,)&)) 

6
/


6





  
 
 
 


 


 

 4


 



 4

4

 
+


1 

-2Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that, on the disclosure statement of the petitioner, recovery of three motorcycles was effected from him. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, two more FIRs are registered against the petitioner; that post presentation of the challan, the charges are yet to be framed and that there are total 26 prosecution witnesses.

While controverting the aforesaid submission made by the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.383 dated 04.08.2021 was initially registered against the unknown person(s) and the petitioner was indicted in the said FIR, after his arrest in the present FIR and that in FIR No.88 dated 31.07.2021, the petitioner has not been arrested till date.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.08.2021. Coaccused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Challan has only been presented under Sections 411 and 473 IPC. While on interim bail, the petitioner has not misused the said concession. Charges are yet to be framed and prosecution evidence is to commence. In FIR No.88 dated 31.07.2021, the petitioner has not yet been arrested and in FIR No.383 dated 04.08.2021, the petitioner was indicted after his arrest in the present FIR. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would

-3be 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 both the sides, 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.  



   

 
8