Sunil Kumar v. State Of Punjab And ANR

CRM-M-61008-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61008-2024 Decided on: 03.04.2025 Sunil Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Varun Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.2/accused.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 26.08.2024 Sherpur, District 338, 318(4), 336(2), 340 and Sangrur 61(2) of BNS 2023 1.

Seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent No.2 in the FIR captioned above, the aggrieved person has come up before this Court under Section 483(2) of BNSS 2023.

2.

Vide order dated 18.10.2024, trial court had granted bail to the accused on the grounds mentioned in the following paragraphs of the impugned order: "I have heard the parties and gone through the record with their kind assistance. The accused, naraely Satnam Singh is in custody since 27.09.2024. There is nothing stated by the prosecution which is sought to be recovered from the applicant/accused, who is in custody. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the accused/ applicant behind bars. Moreover, the challan in the present case has not yet been presented and conclusion of trial will take its own time. Judicial custody of the accused is rather a burden on the State exchequer. Accordingly. the present bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant Satnam ANJU RANI 2025.04.07 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-61008-2024 Singh is directed to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount."

3.

In compliance to the previous order dated 11.03.2025, accused has handed over the affidavit, one copy to the State counsel and one to the complainant (petitioner herein). There is no need to take the affidavit on record of this Court. 4.

Respondent No.2 was granted regular bail after completion of investigation, he was arrested on 27.09.2024 and released pursuant to order dated 18.10.2024 impugned herein. Allegation against the respondent No.2 is of duping huge amount. Since the respondent declared his assets, as such no further action is required. Given above and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, no grounds exist to cancel the bail.

5. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 6.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. Liberty reserved to the complainant to file application for cancellation of bail if the accused hampers with the evidence or violates the conditions of bail order. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 03.04.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2025.04.07 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh