Sanjay Kumar Alias Ganja v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-34684-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 11.3.2022 Sanjay Kumar alias Ganja .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No. 52, dated 17.4.2020, Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar, under Sections 379-B, 188, 269, 270 IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Surinder Partap Yadav wherein it is alleged that he is owner of a vehicle and on 16.4.2020, when he was resting after halting his vehicle on one side at GT Road, Pathankot, while on his way to Jalandhar, then two young persons knocked at the door of his vehicle. When he opened the door, the said two persons who were armed with sticks thrashed him and snatched an amount of Rs.7000/- which he was carrying. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and is nowhere named in the FIR and PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.03.11 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

- 2 - CRM-M-34684-2020 (O&M) that he came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of his alleged confession when he was arrested in connection with another case.

4.

On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in view of the serious nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioner had earlier been involved in three other cases out of which he stands convicted in one and stands acquitted in two, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 1 year, 6 months and 24 days. Learned counsel has further informed that no PW out of the cited 15 PWs has been examined. 5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

The petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year, 6 months and 24 days. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as not even a single PW out of the cited 15 PWs has been examined till date. In these circumstances, without commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner is not justified. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 11.3.2022 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.03.11 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document