Joban Singh @ Jobanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44209-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.09.2023 Joban Singh @ Jobanjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

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

Present:

Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, 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.13 dated 26.02.2023, registered under Sections 379-B(2) and 34 IPC, at Police Station Tarsikka, District Armitsar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for about 7 months. There was a delay of one day in lodging the FIR. Recovery stands effected from the petitioner and his co-accused. Coaccused Manjinder Singh and Gursewak Singh have been granted regular bail by this Court after having been in custody for about 5 months vide orders dated 20.07.2023 and 26.07.2023, Annexures P-2 and P-3. Challan was presented on 20.05.2023 but charges have not been framed and in all there are 12 prosecution witnesses. He is involved in three 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. Challan has been presented on 20.05.2023, however, charges have not been framed and in all there are 12 witnesses. 3.

The custody certificate dated 11.09.2023, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 6 months and 14 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of offence and datar has been recovered from him, while motorcycle and mobile phone from the co-accused. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the stage of the trial, petitioner being on bail in other cases and co-accused having been granted regular bail.

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 6 months and 14 days; on

bail in other cases; co-accused have been granted regular bail; challan stands presented on 20.05.2023, however, charges are still to be framed; in all there are 12 prosecution witnesses; 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 ) 12.09.2023 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No