Arshdeep Singh @ Cheene v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34310-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2023 Arshdeep Singh @ Cheene ..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. HS Sullar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.260 dated 28.12.2022, registered under Sections 399/402 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (Amendment Act) 2019, at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for last about 7 months. The allegations against him were of preparation to commit a big crime. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to police having enmity towards him as he is a driver of renowned press reporter. A false recovery of two cartridges of .315 bore have been shown to have been effected from him. Charges were framed on 06.07.2023 and there are 15 witnesses. Though there are two more cases against him, however, he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

The custody certificate dated 22.07.2023, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 6 months and 23 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that secret information was received wherein he along with co-accused were preparing to commit dacoity. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made regarding stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in two other cases.

5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 6 months and 23 days; is on bail in other cases; charges were framed on 06.07.2023 and in all there are 15 prosecution witnesses; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

8.

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations

made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 24.07.2023 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No