Ajit Singh @ Nanu v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-41726-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-3.10.2019 Ajit Singh @ Nanu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Jimmy Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ***** 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.0252 dated 12.9.2018 at Police Station Patran, District Patiala under Sections 363, 366-A, 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Kuldeep Singh, wherein it has been alleged that on 11.9.2018, all the members of his family had gone to bed after having dinner at about 9:00 P.M. Later at about 1:00 A.M., when he woke up for easing himself, he saw that his daughter was missing from her bed. Although he and other members of his family tried to search of his daughter but whereabouts of his daughter could not be known. Later they came to know that Ajit Singh @ Nanu (petitioner) had enticed away his daughter while holding out a promise of marriage.

Pankaj Kakkar 2019.10.03 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-41726-2019 (O&M) 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that, in any case, the petitioner is a juvenile and has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and that as of now the statement of the prosecutrix has also been recorded. 4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since specific and categoric allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and since the victim was a minor, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that, as on date, only 3 out of the cited 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined and that the prosecutrix stands examined.

5.

Having considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and while refraining from making any expression as regards merits of the case and while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, 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 bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 3.10.2019 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Pankaj Kakkar 2019.10.03 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document