Karan Kumar Alias Varun vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15375 P&H

CRM-M-47902-2022 (O&M)                                                    -1-

223
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-47902-2022 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision : 30.11.2022

Karan Kumar @ Varun                                                ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Punjab                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:     Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

             ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

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

petitioner in FIR No.66 dated 12.04.2022 registered under Sections 307,

341, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25

and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Tibba, District Police

Commissionerate Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2022 and investigation is complete and

challan has been presented and there are 20 prosecution witnesses, out of

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

likely to take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been

named in the FIR and has been implicated on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused and even as per the said statement, no specific

injury has been attributed to the present petitioner.

                               1 of 3

 CRM-M-47902-2022 (O&M)                                                 -2-

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the

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

that in the present case, the co-accused Chetan and Pankaj were having

pistol in their hand and the present petitioner has been implicated on the

basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and the recovery of iron daatar

has been effected from the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the

petitioner is involved in one more case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the said

argument, has submitted that the petitioner is on bail in the abovesaid case

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

perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances as well

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

2 of 3

CRM-M-47902-2022 (O&M) -3-

the facts that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody since

23.06.2022 and investigation is complete and challan has been presented

and out of 20 prosecution witnesses, none have been examined and thus, the

conclusion of the trial is likely to take time and the fact that the petitioner

was not named in the FIR and was implicated on the basis of disclosure

statement of co-accused and as per the same also, no specific attribution of

injury to any person has been made, 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.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

30.11.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                3 of 3