Shamsher Singh @ Sherry vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 5425 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060325




CRM-M-19428-2023                        -1-                 2023:PHHC:060325


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH
(216)
                                 CRM-M-19428-2023
                                 Date of decision: - 26.04.2023

Shamsher Singh @ Sherry
                                                                  ....Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                .....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL


Present:-     Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

                          ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.256 dated 26.09.2021,

registered under Sections 395 IPC (Sections 120-B and 212 have been

added later on) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station

Division B, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 09.10.2021 and out of 16 witnesses,

only 2 witnesses have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take

time. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the petitioner

was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 02.06.2022 and thereafter,

sufficient time has elapsed but the trial has not been concluded. It is also

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060325

CRM-M-19428-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:060325

submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and in the present

case, there are 3 eye witnesses, out of which, 2 eye witnesses i.e., PW1

Davinder Singh (complainant) and PW2 Wazir Singh have been

examined on 17.02.2023 and both the said witnesses had stated that the

petitioner and the other co-accused were not the persons who had looted

the cash amount and gold chain from the complainant.

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

present petition for grant of regular bail and has submitted that in the

present case, recovery of one pistol, 5 live catridges, Rs.40,000/- cash and

one motorcycle, has been effected from the petitioner and the petitioner is

involved in one another case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the

abovesaid arguments, 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

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."

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060325

CRM-M-19428-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:060325

has perused the paper book.

6. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances

moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.10.2021

and out of 16 witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined and thus,

the trial is likely to take time and the two star witnesses i.e., PW1

Davinder Singh (complainant) and PW2 Wazir Singh had specifically

stated that it is not the petitioner who had committed the alleged offence

and also in view of the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi

case (supra), 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 Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to

him not being required in any other case.

7. 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.

8. 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 )
April 26, 2023                                             JUDGE
naresh.k

             Whether reasoned/speaking?        Yes/No
             Whether reportable?               Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060325

                                     3 of 3