Taranjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 04, 2024 1.

Gagandeep Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

2.

Taranjeet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Karnesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-45723-2023.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-43731-2023.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Separate status reports in both the cases have been filed. Both the petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.57 dated 03.03.2023, under Sections 379-B, 411, 392 of IPC {Section 25 (Act No.54 of 1959) of the Arms Act}, registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala.

2.

As per the allegations, Keshav Garg is doing the work of sale and purchase of old vehicles in Car Bazar, Patran. He had employed a worker, namely, Sandeep Ram. On 03.03.2023, two persons {identified later on Gagandeep Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-45723-2023) and Gurinder Singh}, came to purchase a Fortuner car bearing registration

- 2 - No.PB-72A-9888. They asked for test drive. Complainant handed over the keys of the vehicle to his worker Sandeep Ram and sent him with the said two persons to take test drive. After 10 minutes, he received a call from his workder Sandeep Ram that those persons pushed him out of vehicle and snatched the vehicle and fled away. FIR was registered. Later on, the two petitioners alongwith Gurinder Singh were arrested. At the time of recovery of car, Taranjeet Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-437312023) was also found in the car. One pistol along with 6 cartridges were also recovered from the possession of petitioner Gagandeep Singh. 3.

It is contended on behalf of both the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated; that after completion of the investigation, challan has already been filed; that they are in custody for the last more than 10 months, having no criminal antecedents and that the trial may take time to conclude, so they be allowed bail. 4.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that challan has since been filed after completion of investigation and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

5.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that trial may take time to conclude, no purpose shall be served by keeping the two petitioners detained. As such, without commenting anything further on the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that petitioners are in custody for the last more than 10 months, both the petitioners are admitted to bail. They are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of

- 3 - learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and conditions.

Both the petitions stand allowed.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. January 04, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No