Ajay v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-61599-2024 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61599-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 AJAY ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This is a petition for regular bail filed under Section 483 BNSS in case FIR No. 452 dated 11.10.2024 under Sections 115(2)/110/351 (3)/332/190 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that earlier two persons had entered the hotel of the complainant and started recording the video of the daughter of his paternal aunt-Ramandeep Kaur upon which the complainant stopped them from doing so. Thereafter, they came after some time along with other persons accompanied by the present petitioner-Ajay. They all were armed with batons in their hands and gave injuries to the complainant and one Dharampal with the intention to kill them.

3.

Custody certificate has been filed in the Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated being a servant at the adjoining hotel and due to professional rivalry. He further submits that there is no CCTV footage of this incident, which is alleged to have taken place within the hotel premises whereas hotels Renu Rawat 2025.05.01 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-61599-2024 (O&M) -2are normally covered by CCTV surveillance. The petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2024.

4.

Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are grievous in nature. He further submits that challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

9.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 30.04.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.05.01 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document