Lakhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48413-2022 Date of Decision:-27.10.2022 LAKHWINDER SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.-

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH -.- Present:- Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

-.- KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case having FIR No.254 dated 28.9.2022 registered under Sections 364, 382, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Section 411 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant, who was working as Manager in the showroom of Mahindra Thar Jeep. Actually some verbal altercation took place at the spot regarding the cost of the vehicle which the petitioner intended to purchase from the said showroom. The counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.9.2022 and now the compromise has been effected with the complainant and as such no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bar for any longer period.

Notice of motion.

PUNEET CHAWLA 2022.10.29 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

( 2 ) CRM-M-48413-2022 At this stage, Mr. Prince Pasricha, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed power of attorney, which is taken on record and admitted the fact that matter has been compromised between the parties.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, accepts notice on behalf of State of Punjab and on instructions from HC Sandeep Kumar has produced the custody certificate, as per which custody of the petitioner comes out to be 26 days and there is no criminal history of the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

In the light of the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties and the petitioner is in custody for the last 26 days, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars for any longer period. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

( KARAMJIT SINGH) 27.10.2022 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No PUNEET CHAWLA 2022.10.29 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment