Ram Singh v. State Of Punjab





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36712-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.08.2023 Ram Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

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

Mr. Munish Raj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.271 dated 16.06.2022, registered under Sections 302/ 34/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, aged 70 years, is in custody for the last more than 1 year. The only allegation against him is of having raised a lalkara and given fist blows to the deceased, however, the fatal injury has been attributed to co-accused Lakhvir Singh, who is behind bars. The petitioner is suffering from various ailments besides being blind from his right eye and extremely low vision in the left eye. No recovery has been effected from him. Charges were framed on 22.05.2023 and only 6 out of 24 witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. 3.

The custody certificate dated 01.08.2023 filed by learned State counsel is taken on record, as per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year


 and 1 day.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of having given fist blows to the deceased besides lalkara. He is however unable to controvert the submissions regarding the stage of the case and petitioner being not involved in any other case.

5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the medical condition of the petitioner, who is in custody for 1 year and 1 month; not involved in any other case; charges stand framed on 22.05.2023; only 6 out of 24 witnesses have been examined; the trial is likely to take considerable time and thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, as such the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 7.

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 him 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. 8.

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.

9.

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) JUDGE 03.08.2023 S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No