Ataul Ansari @ Atul Ansari vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 7889 P&H

                            205
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                                           CRM-M-22842-2022 (O&M)
                                                                           Date of decision : 27.07.2022


                            Ataul Ansari @ Atul Ansari                                        ... Petitioner(s)

                                                                 Versus

                            State Of Punjab                                                ... Respondent(s)



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present:       Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                           Ms. Simran Grewal, AAG Punjab.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

This is the third petition under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR

No.188 dated 29.07.2019 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC were added later on)

and Sections 66 and 66-D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act,

2008, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first

bail petition being CRM-M-15409-2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on

17.12.2020 and the second bail petition being CRM-M-27403-2021 was

dismissed by a detailed speaking order dated 18.01.2022. Learned counsel

for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner has been in

custody for a period of 3 years and that despite the Trial Court being

requested to expedite the trial vide order dated 18.01.2022, the trial was not YOGESH SHARMA 2022.07.28 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CRM-M-22842-2022 (O&M)                                                  -2-



                             progressing.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from

ASI Pavitar Singh, has contended that the petitioner in the present case is

lodged in Noida jail in connection with another case and on a few dates he

was not produced by the jail authorities through video conferencing. It is

further contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender. She would further

contend that every endeavour shall be made to examine the prosecution

witnesses expeditiously.

In view of the detailed order already passed on 18.01.2022 in

CRM-M-27403-2021, no further order needs to be passed in the present

case.

Dismissed.

                                                                           ( ALKA SARIN )
                            27.07.2022                                         JUDGE
                            Yogesh Sharma

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO

YOGESH SHARMA 2022.07.28 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh