Sharanjit Singh Alias Bhau v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36326-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2022 SHARANJIT SINGH ALIAS BHAU ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.45 dated 16.03.2022, registered at Police Station Majitha Road, Amritsar, under Sections 457, 380, 212, 216, 411, 414 and 34 IPC and Sections 25 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the present case; that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR; that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.03.2022; that the petitioner has been indicted in the present case on the basis of the secret information; that co-accused, namely, Shabha and Vicky, have committed the robbery; that nothing was/is to be recovered from the petitioner and that there is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner. He further submits that on the basis AMAN JAIN 2022.08.24 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-36326-2022 (O&M) -2of the disclosure statement of Kamal Kumar, stolen articles and some jewellery were recovered.

Per 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 the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence and that Kamal Kumar was the mastermind, who used to arrange the stolen articles. He further submits that prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.03.2022. No recovery was/is to be effected from the petitioner. There is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner. Most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude.

Therefore, no useful purpose would be 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 either side, 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. 24.08.

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.08.24 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment