Lovepreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 213 (2 cases) Case No. : CRM-M-48735-2022 Date of Decision : January 12, 2023 Lovepreet Singh ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent Case No. : CRM-M-51727-2022 Date of Decision : January 12, 2023 Varinder Singh @ Vishal ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.

* * * Present :

Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-48735-2022).

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-51727-2022).

Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.

* * * GURBIR SINGH , J. :

Vide this common order, two petitions i.e. CRM-M-487352022 and CRM-M-51727-2022 filed by two different persons, shall be disposed of as the FIR involved in both the petitions is the same arising out of the same occurrence. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CRM-M-48735-2022.

These are petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0224 dated 05.09.2022, under Sections 379-B, 511, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Bathinda, District Bathinda.

Custody Certificates, filed today in Court by learned State Counsel, are ordered to be taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the case was registered against unknown persons. The physical description of the accused was not given. The allegations are that three young boys, riding the motorcycle, surrounded the complainant and one of them tried to snatch the bag hung on the shoulder of the complainant but could not succeed. On the supplementary statement of the complainant, petitioners were nominated as accused along with two other persons, without any basis. The allegation of attempt to snatch was levelled. It is not a case of snatching. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the petitioners were very much involved in the offence and do not deserve the leniency from the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In this case, the petitioners have already undergone about 04 months of their sentence. The challan has also been presented. Keeping in view the fact that the completion of trial will take a long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars for a long period.

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,

the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail, on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.

However, nothing contained herein above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected matter.

January 12, 2023 (GURBIR SINGH) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.