Manmohan Singh Alias Mohan v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 02.07.2025 MANMOHAN SINGH ALIAS MOHAN ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.


    ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 07.11.2023 379-B, 34 IPC;

(148, 149, 379B(2) IPC and 25 and 27 Arms Act added later on);

(379-B and 34 IPC deleted later on) Division E, District Amritsar no. 2), Mo 2.



 





 

  



   



       

  

 

 





!

 

   "

!  



     #$%%&#&'

     !

 

-2-   

   !"

 

        



!   

           



  (





 ) !



 

 



       







"

 



   !

 *(%+,   *(&+!-! *('+  

*(.+ /
      "

! ( 

0 

 /
 

  /    

 

     /   

 

 

  

 

      1

        



 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel referring to the short reply filed by the State, has opposed the petition on the ground of serious nature and gravity of the offence. However, on a query, he has not disputed the fact that the material witnesses of the case have not lent any support to the case of prosecution against the petitioner.

4.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that the instant case was registered on the complaint of Nitish Sarin to the effect that on 07.11.2023 at about 9:50 pm, while he was present in his shop, five persons armed with weapons entered the shop and by putting him under fear, had forcibly taken away cash box and his mobile phone. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 08.11.2023 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented in Court, wherein the eye witnesses namely PW-1/Baljit Singh, PW-2/Amit Kumar, PW-3/Sahib Singh and PW-4/Sujal @ Monu have been examined, who have not supported the case of the prosecution against the petitioner and were declared hostile.

-35.

The perusal of record would reveal that the material witnesses of the case have since been examined by the prosecution and have not supported the case of prosecution against the petitioner and in fact turned hostile. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 08.11.2023. The conclusion of trial to ascertain criminal liability, if any, will take sufficient long time, as such, no purpose would be served by detaining petitioner any longer.

6.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 7.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

8.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 02.07.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No