Jugraj Singh Alias Jagga v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40843-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.08.2023 Jugraj Singh @ Jagga

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

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

Present:

Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh Arora, DAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.96 dated 06.06.2022, registered under Sections 379-B IPC (Sections 411 and 201 IPC added later on), at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar. 2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year, 2 months and 11 days. He was not named in the FIR. The supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant after 4 days wherein names of the petitioner, co-accused Sandeep @ Seepa and Varinder had been disclosed. Co-accused Sandeep @ Seepa has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2023, Annexure P3, though learned counsel submits that in the said order inadvertently it has been mentioned that it was on the disclosure statement. Both are similarly circumstanced. Recovery from the said co-accused was Rs.2000/- while from petitioner is Rs.15,000/-. Though challan was

presented on 09.08.2022, however, charges were framed on 24.07.2023 and none out of 12 witnesses has yet been examined. He is involved in two more cases wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

The custody certificate dated 23.08.2023, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 2 months and 11 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner was specifically named in the supplementary statement by the complainant and had actively participated in the commission of offence. Recovery of Rs.15000/- was effected from him. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the stage of the trial, coaccused has been granted regular bail and the petitioner being on bail in other cases.

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 possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several

criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail." 7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 1 year, 2 days and 11 days; not named in the FIR; on bail in other cases; co-accused has been enlarged on bail; charges were framed on 24.07.2023 but out of 12 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far; 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 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 an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 24.08.2023 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No