Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099827
CRM-M-28780-2022 2023:PHHC:099827 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
215-1 CRM-M-28780-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.08.2023
Manpreet Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. JS Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.8 dated 13.01.2020,
registered under Sections 302,506,341,120-B,212,216,201 IPC, Sections
25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, at
Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for
the last more than 3 years. He was not named in the FIR and his name
surfaced based on disclosure statement of co-accused Sumit Kumar @
Noni. The allegation against him is of having harboured the accused after
he committed the offence. He was not present at the time of commission
of offence and no recovery has been effected from him. Similarly situated
co-accused Simranjit Singh @ Sima s/o Malkit Singh, has been granted
regular bail vide order dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure P4), after having been
in custody for 8 months. He is involved in one more case under NDPS
Act and two under IPC, wherein he was convicted. However, there is no
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099827
case pending trial against him. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. Charges were framed on
13.01.2020, however, only 3 out of 33 prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
3. Reply on behalf of respondent-State has been filed by
learned State counsel. Same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been
furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that in
connivance with other co-accused, petitioner had committed the murder of
Jagjit Singh and that he is involved in three more cases. He is however
unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the custody, stage of
the trial and co-accused having been granted bail.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "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." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State
of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The
offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several
criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves
cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099827
particular that the petitioner is in custody for more than 3 years; his name
surfaced based on disclosure statement of co-accused Sumit Kumar @
Noni; co-accused Simranjit Singh @ Sima has been granted bail; though
charges were framed on 13.01.2020 but only 3 out of 33 witnesses have
yet been examined; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his
further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present
petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
8. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and
subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall
abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and
shall not change the same till the conclusion of
the trial and in case for any reason, the
petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid,
the same shall be done only with prior
intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099827
reason for the same.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose
any other condition, as deemed appropriate
while releasing the petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would
not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial
would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
03.08.2023 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099827
4 of 4
