Mintu And ANR. v. State Of Punjab
!"
"#$%$ &'((
) * ( + + +
!
+ +
, ( -. /0 "
#
$
%&'
( ( $
$ $
)*+ ,- ./ .% ,.,&
&-'01%""
&%
*(
$
, $
3
$ $4$
3
$
43
$
$$
$$
)*
"5
4$$ 3
3
$
&.
...603
)*
4
3 $
$4 &.
...60
$4 "5 3
$
4
$
$
"-&
( ( $
(
$
47 $
may be considered for the grant of regular bail.
3.
On the other hand,
$ !
has stated that it is correct that there was a delay of 11⁄2 months in lodging the FIR and the subject matter of the theft is only Rs.30,000/-. He has however opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that both the petitioners are involved in some other cases pertaining to the similar offences. 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.
It is a case where the total subject matter of theft is only Rs.30,000/-. The investigation of the case has already been completed and the report under Section 173
( ( $
has been presented to the competent Court. The FIR was lodged after a period of 11⁄2 months. The mere fact that the petitioners are involved in number of other cases itself cannot become a ground for denial of bail to both the petitioners unless other facts are shown by learned State counsel to justify the denial of bail. This Court is of the view that considering the subject matter of the theft which is only Rs.30,000/- and considering the fact that there was a delay of 11⁄2 months in lodging of the FIR and the investigation of the case has already been completed, both the petitioners deserve the concession of regular bail. ( 8 $4 the present petition is allowed. #
$$
$
$ $
8
4
$ 6
4
$ $( 6 4
-
4
$$
9
$4
- + + 0
121%!
',
:
7 ;
6+ :
$
;
6+