Vijay Kumar v. State Of Punjab



  
      
 



!"#"

$

% %

   

    

  
 &' % (
 ( (  

  

 

  !"  



 

  

# $   ( (  ) % *+ ,- %

& 

& '

' '

      

      &      "  ()*    

 +    +  &

"



 

 

& &

,-. /00% %1 /* 0/0%  ")2*34506- +5 ")0((%%- + & 6



 &"

 # "7  

8earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the long custody of the petitioner, hemay be considered for the grant of regular bail in the present successive bail petition. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year and 11 months and till date not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. He further submitted that the subject matter in the present case is theft of Rs.5000/- and a mobile phone and he has been falsely implicated in the present case in view of the fact that the complainant has specifically named the

petitioner in the FIR because of his personal enmity. He further submitted that the petitioner was earlier involved in one more case under Sections 380 and 454 IPC but he has since been acquitted in that case vide order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dasuya. He further submitted that considering the custody of the petitioner, he may be considered for the grant of regular bail.

3.

On the other hand, 

 

  &  

# $

 has stated that it is correct that the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 1 year and 11 months and in the other case he has since been acquitted and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

It is a case where the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 11 month. Although it is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner but considering the long custody of the petitioner, the successive bail petition would certainly be maintainable in this regard. As per learned counsels for the parties, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date and the subject matter of the theft in the present case was only Rs.5000/- and a mobile phone. Therefore, this Court is of the view that considering the long custody of the petitioner, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail since the trial of the case may take long time.

6.

+ 9 &the present petition is allowed.

 &&

&  

& &

9



"  "  & :

    

 "    

 &     &  + :#    ""





7'

!

  !



!

 && 

 

;

 

" &  

   "

  *( ( -   ./.#

)

  



<



   = :. <



 &  = :.