High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/51152/2021allowed

Kaku v. The State Of Punjab

2022-01-10Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51152-2021 Date of Decision:-10.1.2022 KAKU ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent *****

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH ***** Present:- Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.

***** KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

Instance petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in FIR No.238 dated 30.7.2017 registered under Sections 323, 341, 379-B IPC at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that even otherwise no specific allegations are there in the FIR against the petitioner, GAURAV SOROT 2022.01.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-51152-2021 who is in custody since 29th August, 2021 and is not required by the police any longer, as challan has been presented in the Court. The bail application is contested by the State counsel who submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR which was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant-Gurpreet Singh regarding snatching of his motorcycle by the petitioner, Shiva and Jagga. I have considered submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was arrested in this case on 29.8.2021 and on completion of investigation challan has been presented in the Court against the petitioner and other accused. No specific act has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR except that he assisted the other accused at the time of alleged occurrence.

The petitioner is already in custody for more than 4 months and it will take considerable time for conclusion of the trial, due to prevalent resurge of COVID-19 pandemic. I am of the view that in given circumstances, no purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for any longer period. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioner is granted concession of regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

( KARAMJIT SINGH) 10.1.2022 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2022.01.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document