Manmohan Singh @ Mohna vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 14697 P&H

CRM-M-47074-2022                                            -1-

220
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-47074-2022
                                                Date of decision : 18.11.2022

Manmohan Singh @ Mohna

                                                                    ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

            ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.60 dated 17.02.2022 registered under Sections 307,

324, 323, 341, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (added later on) at Police Station City

Budhlana, District Mansa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2022 and investigation is complete and

challan has been presented and there are 36 prosecution witnesses, out of

which, none have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is

likely to take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been

attributed one injury with an axe on the right leg of Darshan Singh which

1 of 3

injury attracts offence under Section 325 of IPC. It is contended that in the

present case, no injury has been suffered by any person which has been

declared to be dangerous to life.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel, has opposed the

present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted

that the petitioner is involved in other cases also and is a habitual offender.

However, other facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner have

not been disputed by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid

argument, 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 and the bail application of the petitioner cannot

be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another

case. 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.

In the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2022

and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 36

2 of 3

prosecution witnesses, none have been examined as yet and thus, the

conclusion of trial is likely to take time. No injury caused to the injured has

been declared to be dangerous to life. The petitioner has been attributed one

injury with an axe on the right leg of Darshan Singh which attracts offence

under Section 325 of IPC.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances as well

as law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra), the

present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on

regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial

Court/Duty Magistrate, 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 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 an 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 application.

18.11.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                3 of 3