Vijay v. State Of Punjab

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN THE JAB AND HARYANA ARH CRM-M-42509-2024 (O&M) cision: September 11, 2024 AT CHANDIGA ) Date of Dec ........Petitioner VIJAY STATE OF PU CORAM: HO

Present:

M M M

Versus

UNJAB ........Respondent ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARK KESH MANUJA Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocat Mr. B.S. Choudhary, Advocate te for for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, P Punjab.

**** ANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MA 1.

By y way of this second petition f iled under Section 439 CrPC, , prayer has be een made for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.86 dated d 26.10.2023 re egistered under Sections 324 4, 307, 34 and 201 of IPC at t Police Station n Dhakoli, SAS Nagar, Moha li wherein, the petitioner has s been implicate ed against the allegations of f having assaulted servant of f complainant n namely, Minta by inflicting a k knife blow on the left side of f his abdomen.

2.

Th he prayer made herein has b een opposed at the instance e of learned Sta ate counsel while submitting t that the petitioner is involved d in four more cases and thus, considering g his antecedents as well as s injuries inflicte ed in the present case, the pe etitioner does not deserve the e concession of f regular bail.

3.

I h have heard learned counse el for the parties and gone e through the p aper book. I find substance in the submissions made on n behalf of the p petitioner.

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-42509-2024 (O&M) -24.

A perusal of the record shows that investigation already stands concluded with the filing of challan followed by framing of charges and the petitioner who is a young boy of 22 years of age is in custody for the last more than 10 months. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is stated to be involved in four more cases, however, as per the information provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner which has not been disputed by learned State counsel, the petitioner stands acquitted in three of them whereas, in the fourth one, he is already on bail. In such circumstances, while considering the custody period and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, this Court does not find justification to extend his incarceration any further. 5.

In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 6.

Nothing construed herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11.09.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.09.12 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document