Pawandeep Singh Alias Pamma v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-50096-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.4.2022 Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.24, dated 16.2.2021, Police Station Garhi, District Jind, Haryana, under Sections 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Sections 201, 34 and 379-A of Indian Penal Code were added later on.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Akshay, wherein the allegations are broadly to the effect that four persons had snatched his car. Subsequently in the supplementary statement the complainant also alleged that his gold chain was snatched by the accused. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and came to be nominated subsequently on the basis of his own PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.04.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-50096-2021 (O&M) disclosure statement, which was allegedly made when the petitioner came to be arrested in another case.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has also been identified by the complainant when identification parade was conducted, his complicity is duly established. It has, however, been submitted that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and that he stands involved in one more case for offence under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. It has been informed that none out of the cited 12 PWs has been examined. 5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without expressing anything as regards merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 1 year and that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as none out of the cited 12 PWs has been examined so far, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 22.4.2022 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.04.22 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document