Pargat Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"#"
$%
&
() *+
% ,-./.
.
. +0-1%
!"#
$ % &' ' #(#) *
+$&,-
' %
./0
12 ./&
3
12.08.2024 Sadar Nabha, District Patiala 454, 380, 448, 511 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 #
0 0 0
0 1 %
0 4
50
'6 1
1 %7 &
100
1
1
9:
() #(##
0 0 9;:((((<2 '6
0 :((((((<2
0
/1
1
%
1
%
0 %
0 1
0
0 8%
1
'
'6
0
0
'
0
0
%
0
1 %
)
(:
9# #(#)
%
1 0 %
00
01
'
0
0' 1%
(:
9# #(#)
1
0
10 2
1%
0
3
0
%
&
5
'
0 '
0 % 1
10 %
4
6 9( 9( #(#!
)
%
%
%0 % 1
'6 1
0 %
0 4 0
8%
%6 1
% (:
9# #(#)
1 =
2
00 %
1
4 %
'
%
0 7 =
00
./ 10
%
1
'
%
4
= &
%
0 4 2
&
%
4.
Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner and therefore, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
6.
The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have entered into the property belonging to the complainant i.e. the pool of the hotel owned by accused Vikas Jindal and is further alleged to have made an attempt to commit theft of the articles belonging to the complainant. From the allegations in the FIR itself, it is revealed that no offence of theft had been committed and the alleged stolen articles were found kept at the spot itself. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. As such, his custodial interrogation is not required. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against the
petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to
4 1 % 0
1
%
4
the following conditions:- *-
1
<
=
*-
%
%0'
%
0 % = 1
0<
0
%
>
*-
00 %0
"
/ %
4 0
%
1 1
?
/ 0
8
3
. 4
&
() *+