Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17665 P&H

CRM-M-59431-2022                                                          1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
208
                                                 CRM-M-59431-2022
                                  `              Decided on :23.12.2022
Harjit Singh
                                                                  . . . Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                                . . . Respondent

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Thakur, Advocate
         for the petitioner.
               Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.

                                      ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 166 dated 24.09.2022

registered under Sections 379-B, 506 and 34 IPC (Section 201 IPC

added later on) at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 25.09.2022 and the investigation is

complete and the challan has already been presented and there are 8

witnesses, out of which, none have been examined and thus, the

conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the

present FIR has been registered after a delay of 20 days inasmuch as,

the alleged incident is of 04.09.2022 whereas the FIR has been

registered on 24.09.2022 and the same has been registered on the

statement of Lehna Singh, who is stated to be a 70 year old person and

1 of 4

who has stated that after the alleged incident had taken place, he had

investigated at his own level and then named the accused persons,

including the present petitioner, as the persons who had committed the

incident on 04.09.2022. It is submitted that it is not the case of the

prosecution that it was on the basis of some investigation carried out by

the police that the involvement of the present petitioner was found

rather the investigation was done by the complainant himself. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the affidavit dated

15.11.2022 of the said Lehna Singh wherein he has stated that he had

not given any statement against the petitioner and one another co-

accused and that the said affidavit was also produced before the learned

Sessions Judge, Amritsar. It is contended that no recovery has been

effected from the present petitioner.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that an amount of Rs.

40,000/- has been recovered from the co-accused of the present

petitioner, although, he has not denied the fact that no recovery has been

effected from the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the

petitioner is involved in two other cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2)

SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case

are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application

2 of 4

of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the

petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said

judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances

moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.09.2022

and the investigation is complete and the challan has already been

presented and there are 8 witnesses, out of which, none have been

examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and

there was a delay of 20 days in the registration of the FIR and no

recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and also the fact

that an affidavit dated 15.11.2022 has been stated to have been given by

the complainant stating that the present petitioner is innocent and is not

involved in the present case and the said affidavit has also been

produced before the Sessions Judge, Amritsar the present petition is

allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial

3 of 4

Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any

other case.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by

the petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the

witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for

cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would

proceed independently of the observations made in the present case

which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

                                                     (VIKAS BAHL)
23.12.2022                                              JUDGE
Mehak
                      Whether reasoned/speaking?        Yes/No
                      Whether reportable?               Yes/No




                                            4 of 4