Jeewan Lal @ Jimmi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42519-2019 Date of decision:15.10.2019 JEEWAN LAL @ JIMMI .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, AAG, Punjab.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case registered vide FIR No.82 dated 5.5.2017 under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Division No.7, District Jalandhar. 2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant-Paramjit Kaur wherein it has been alleged that her daughter aged about 14 years used to take tuition from Jaswinder Kumar. However on one day when her daughter refused to go for tuition, the complainant asked her daughter about the reason and she disclosed that the tutor Jaswinder Kumar and his brother Neeraj had misbehaved with her and that Neeraj had given a letter to her written by the petitioner and was pressuring her to reply the same immediately. When the complainant's daughter brought the said fact to the notice of the tutor, he brushed aside the matter while saying that such GAURAV SOROT 2019.10.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-42519-2019 like thing usually happens at tuition centers. It is further alleged that on one occasion the said Neeraj had even kissed the complainant's daughter. The complainant further alleged that her daughter disclosed that said Neeraj wanted to befriend with the complainant's daughter. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and in any case as of now investigation is complete and that further detention of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that the alleged letter was got examined from Handwriting Expert, who had opined that letter in question was written by the petitioner. It has thus been submitted that in view of the clinching evidence, no case for grant of bail is made out.

5.

Having considered rival contentions addressed before this Court and while bearing mind the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 1 1⁄2 months and investigation is stated to have almost concluded and conclusion of trial, in conclusion of trial, in its normal course, is likely to take its normal course, is likely to take some time, i some time, in my opinion, no fruitful purpose would be served by further n my opinion, no fruitful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind bars. The petition, as such, is accepted detaining the petitioner behind bars. The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail and it is ordered that petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 15.10.2019 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2019.10.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document