High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/39056/2020allowed

Anil Kumar And ANR v. State Of Punjab

2020-12-03Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal16 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 217 CRM-M-23704-2020 Date of decision : 03.12.2020 Buta Singh ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Mr.Dhruv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ******* DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that since the entire evidence has been led by both the parties and the matter is listed before the Trial Court on 10.12.2020 for final arguments, the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the petitioner's trial expeditiously through physical/virtual hearing.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to hear the arguments of both sides by resorting to physical/virtual hearing and take a final decision in the petitioner's trial on the next date fixed before it or within a month thereafter. However, such direction is subject to the assessment by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur of the prevailing local conditions including the intensity of the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines/health advisories and SOPs issued by the Government of India/State Governments from time to time.

03.12.2020 [ DEEPAK SIBAL ] Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 217(2) CRM-M-28199-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.12.2020 Gurbachan Singh@ Bittu ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Mr.R.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

******* DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that since the entire evidence has been led by both the parties and the matter is listed before the Trial Court on 10.12.2020 for final arguments, the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the petitioner's trial expeditiously through physical/virtual hearing.

03.12.2020 [ DEEPAK SIBAL ] Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

219 CRM-M-26111-2020 SANDEEP @ SANDY ROHILLA VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

On request of learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 15.12.2020.

To be heard alongwith CRM-M-2214-2020.

220 CRM-M-26958-2020 SUMIT @ MAMAN VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.Subhash Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

Status report filed by the State is ordered to be taken on record. Adjourned to 05.02.2021.

Before the adjourned date the State shall place on record a copy of the statement of the eye witness who has appeared before the Trial Court as PW-5.

221 CRM-M-30559-2020 SUKHCHAIN SINGH @ CHAINA VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.R.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Learned State counsel prays for and is granted last opportunity to produce the petitioner's custody certificate. Adjourned to 05.02.2021.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 222 CRM-M-39056-2020 Date of decision : 03.12.2020 Anil Kumar and another ..... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Mr.Deepinder Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ******* DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.10 dated 16.01.2020, registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 377, 120-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, who is the complainant's cousin, alongwith her younger brothers, was living in the house of the complainant's matrimonial uncle namely Harmesh Mehto where elder daughter of Harmesh Mehto namely Gudiya Devi was also living. On 13.01.2020 at about 7 pm Gudiya Devi informed the complainant that the prosecutrix had gone somewhere and is not traceable. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint with the police stating therein that he had full faith that Sonu son of Harmesh Mehto had enticed the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her. On being recovered the prosecutrix got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that it were the petitioners who had taken her and Sonu to the bus stand and made them sit in a bus. On the basis of this statement the petitioners were nominated as accused.

Seeking regular bail for the petitioners learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case only for the reason that the prosecutrix had eloped with their relative-Sonu and after being recovered,

CRM-M-39056-2020 [ 2 ] under pressure of her parents, out of sheer vengeance, had roped in the petitioners as accused; even if the case of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, though vehemently denied, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they had escorted the prosecutrix and Sonu to a bus stand without putting any pressure on either of them; there is no other criminal case in which they are involved; they are in custody for over two months; report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed and therefore they are not in a position to influence the investigation and that the trial which is yet to commence will take a long time to conclude. Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that they were accomplices in the abduction and rape of the prosecutrix.

The petitioners have been in custody for the last over two months; they are not involved in any other criminal case; they are not named in the FIR; the main case of the prosecution is not against the petitioners but against Sonu who is alleged to have abducted and raped the prosecutrix; report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed and therefore they are not in a position to influence the investigation and the trial which is yet to commence is likely to take a long time to conclude especially in the present circumstances when the world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic.

In view of the above, the present case is considered to be a fit one in which the petitioners be directed to be released on regular bail. Resultantly, subject to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana the petitioners are directed to be released on bail.

It is clarified that the above observations have been made only for the limited purpose of deciding the present regular bail application and the same would not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [ DEEPAK SIBAL ] Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

223 CRM-M-39067-2020 DHARAMVEER ALIAS ANUJ VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.Namit Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

Notice of motion.

Mr.A.K.Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and prays for time to file reply. Adjourned to 16.12.2020.

To be heard alongwith CRM-M-35868-2020.

224 (2 cases) CRM-M-39096-2020 KAMAL KUMAR AHUJA @ ROCKY VS STATE OF PUNJAB CRM-M-39156-2020 HARSHDEEP VERMA @ HARSHDEEP SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.Vishal Rana, Advocate, for Mr.Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-39096-2020.

Mr.Sandeep Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-39156-2020.

Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

On request of learned counsel for the petitioner(s), adjourned to 07.12.2020.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected case.

225 CRM-M-39353-2020 PARDEEP AND ANR VS STATE OF HARYANA Mr.T.K.Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr.A.K.Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia relies on the grant of regular bail by this Court to co-accused Mohan. Adjourned to 04.12.2020.

226 CRM-M-39631-2020 (O&M) KARNI SINGH @ KARANPAL SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.R.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and prays for time to file reply.

Adjourned to 11.02.2021.

Before the adjourned date the State shall file the petitioner's custody certificate.

227 CRM-M-39657-2020 VIKRANT SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Mr.S.K.Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. On request of learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 08.12.2020.

228 CRM-28219-2020 in CRA-S-1662-2019 NIRMAL SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB Ms.Aashna Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Learned State counsel submits that the applicant is on parole till 14.01.2021.

Adjourned to 12.02.2021.

229 CRM-M-22224-2020 (O&M) LAKHBIR SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Mr.Prince Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Reply filed on behalf of the State is ordered to be taken on record.

For arguments, adjourned to 12.02.2021.

230 CRWP-4299-2020 PARVEEN KUMARI @ POOJA VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Mr.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents No.4 to 9.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 25.01.2021.

231 CRWP-5833-2020 IVLEEN KAUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Mr.Rajat Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Status report filed on behalf of the State is ordered to be taken on record.

Adjourned to 15.12.2020.

In the meanwhile, respondents No.4 and 5 may also file their reply.