Ravi Kumar @ Ravi v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-51550-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:-6.2.2020 Ravi Kumar @ Ravi ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Prashant Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Attri, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by ASI Hardev Singh.

***** 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.111 dated 7.8.2019 at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar City under Section 379-B of Indian Penal Code. 2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sunil Kumar, wherein it has been alleged that he is a fruit vendor and that on 6.8.2019 at about 7:30 P.M. while he was pushing his 'rehri', then 2 boys namely Ravi Kumar and Kunal Gill @ Gori, whom he knew earlier, came there and snatched `3,000/- from him, which were the proceeds of his sale for the day. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on account of some perevious PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.02.06 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-51550-2019 (O&M) enimity between the complainant and the petitioner and that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations as levelled by the complainant. 4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made out. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about six months and that although charges have been framed but till date not even a single PW has been examined. 5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and while refraining from making any expression as regards merit of the case and while also noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about six months, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. 6.

The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

6.2.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.02.06 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document