Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh @Kali vs State Of Punjab on 22 November, 2022
CRM-M-52798-2022 -1-
237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52798-2022
Date of decision : 22.11.2022
Darshan Singh @ Kali
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is the second petition for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.116 dated 03.05.2022 registered under Sections 379-B/34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana,
Punjab.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is in custody since 03.05.2022 and investigation is complete and challan has
been presented and there are 8 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 earlier bail application of the petitioner was
withdrawn on 31.08.2022 at that stage and even after the same, no progress has
been made in the case and not even a single witness has been examined and
thus, entitling the petitioner to file the present petition. It is contended that the
1 of 3
petitioner has been implicated in the case only on the basis of secret
information and the complainant in the present case is a police official and FIR
was registered on the allegations that the petitioner and one Suraj Kumar are
coming to sell mobile phones which they have stolen. It is further contended
that all the witnesses are the police officials. It is argued that recovery has
already been effected from the present petitioner and thus, no purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel, has opposed the present
petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that five
mobile phones and one datar have been recovered from the present petitioner
and that the present petitioner is involved in two other cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid
argument, has submitted that out of the abovesaid cases, the petitioner has been
acquitted in one case and in another case, he has already undergone the
sentence and 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
2 of 3
perused the paper book.
In the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2022
and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 8
prosecution witnesses, none have been examined as yet and thus, the
conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Recovery has already been effected in
the present case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner in further incarceration and all the witnesses are police officials.
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.
22.11.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
