Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211-1
CRM-M-61268-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 03.07.2024
Manpreet Singh
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.110 dated 08.07.2023 registered under Sections 395, 342, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25,27, 29 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Majitha,Amritsar, District Amritsar.
2. The allegations levelled in the present FIR are that, during intervening night of 07/08.07.2023 at about 12:15 AM, 30-35 persons entered into godown by scaling the wall. The said persons were armed with kirchs, kirpans, datars and 2/3 persons were having pistols. They detained all the six chowkidars in a room and loaded two trucks with wheat. On checking they came to know that 1063 bags of wheat were stolen, each weighing 50 Kg. Total stolen wheat was 531 Quintal 50 Kg.
3. Succinctly stated, the allegation against the petitioner is that, he brought a truck bearing No.MH-04-CG-4697 and stolen wheat was loaded in said truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas, he has not KAVITA NAIN committed any offence, as alleged. Moreover, the FIR was initially 2024.07.04 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment CRM-M-61268-2023 (O&M) -2- registered against unknown person(s) and the petitioner and co-accused have subsequently been arrayed as accused therein. In fact, the petitioner and his co-accused were working as labourer in the godown of Pungrain and the actual dispute between the parties is with regard to payment of wages of the labour. Owing to this dispute, the present FIR has been registered.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.07.2023 and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime soon, inasmuch as out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date.
6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of "Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain observations regarding release of accused on bail.
7. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 02.07.2024 in Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 12 days and there is no other criminal case pending against him. He also submits that challan has been presented on 12.10.2023 and charges have been framed. He also submits that out of a total of 24 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. In view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
8. Heard.
9. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2023. None of the prosecution witness have been examined despite charges having been framed and further incarceration of KAVITA NAIN 2024.07.04 10:35 the petitioner would not serve any purpose. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment
CRM-M-61268-2023 (O&M) -3-
10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. (V) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
12. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
July,03 2024
Kavita Nain
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
KAVITA NAIN Whether Reportable: Yes/No
2024.07.04 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
order/judgment