High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/45398/2019allowed

Sunil Jain v. State Of Punjab

2020-02-14Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 45398 of 2019 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 45398 of 2019 Date of Decision: 14.2.2020 Sunil Jain ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab assisted by SI Hardeep Singh.

Mr. T.K.Joshi, Advocate and Mr. Satpal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 63 dated 17.2.2018 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC (Section 409 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.2.2018 and the allegations against the petitioner are that he has got the loan amount sanctioned in the name of one Pargat Singh which was withdrawn by him. The other allegation is that the loan was also granted to the two firms related to the wife of the petitioner, who is the co-accused of the petitioner and has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2018. Learned counsel further submits that challan has been presented and charges have been framed by the trial Court GURPREET SINGH 2020.02.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CRM-M No. 45398 of 2019 -2vide order dated 14.10.2019 and in pursuance to the guidelines issued by Govt. of India under the Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (for short 'PMEGP'), the investigating officer was directed to further investigate the matter regarding the role of District Task Force in the scam regarding wrong recommendation for sanctioning loan under PMEGP scheme.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the facts that charges have already been framed against the petitioner and he is in custody since 19.2.2018.

In the present case, charges have been framed. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.2.2018. The co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted regular bail by this Court. The trial will take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE February 14, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2020.02.14 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh