Gagandeep Singh Alias Gagna v. State Of Punjab

- 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.07.2023 Gagandeep Singh alias Gagna ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Mohit Vashishat, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.19 dated 02.03.2023, registered under Sections 353, 186, 379-B and 34 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 4 months. There were two persons, who were specifically named in the FIR, however, the name of the petitioner did not figure. It was in the supplementary statement of the complainant made by way of an afterthought that the petitioner was falsely implicated. No recovery has been effected from him. The motor-cycle and mobile phone have been recovered from the co-accused. Challan was presented on 20.05.2023, however, charges have not been framed. In all there are 8 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is involved in one more case, however, he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in

- 2Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 25.07.2023 has been filed by learned State counsel. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 3 months and 29 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner has been specifically named by the complainant in her supplementary statement and he had actively participated in the commission of offence. He is involved in one more case. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to the stage of the case and the petitioner is on bail in another case. 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 the 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 3 months and 29 days; is on bail in another case; challan already stands presented on 20.05.2023, however, the charges are yet to be framed; in all there are 8 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

- 3- 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

- 4an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 26, 2023 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No