Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab on 18 December, 2023
CRM-M No.38048 of 2023 (O&M) 1
2023:PHHC:162659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
294
CRM-M No.38048 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.12.2023
Balwinder Singh Sandhu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rozer K. Aggarwal, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
This 3rd petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.62 dated
30.03.2008, registered under Sections 419, 170, 189, 507 IPC at Police
Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, as
per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant stated that one telephone
is received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division
Phillaur that on his phone No.99157-16018 at about 8:16 PM one phone
from 98555-00008 has been received and the caller said that "I am
A.D.G.P. Chander Shekhar speaking and what is the situation about
your law and order and he said that your barricades are very less." On
which the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phillaur,
asked him that "you are not appearing to be Chander Shekhar" and he
replied that "when I will call you at Chandigarh then you will come to
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:162659
know". Then he said that "Balwinder Singh Ghudka is sitting with me
and whether any application is received against him or not and if
received, then no action should be taken against him". Thereafter, the
caller uttered many vulgar words and threatened and also pressurized
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phillaur and thus,
the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
1st regular bail application i.e. CRM-M No.48458 of 2022, filed by the
petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.10.2022 and thereafter, the
2nd bail application i.e. CRM-M No.58571 of 2022, was dismissed on
merits on 20.12.2022, by this Court. Even thereafter, the petitioner has
filed another petition i.e. CRM-M No.27093 of 2023, for seeking
interim bail in the impugned FIR No.62 dated 30.03.2008 and the same
was dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/- vide order dated 26.05.2023.
Thereafter, against the aforesaid orders dated 20.12.2022 passed by this
Court in CRM-M No.58571 of 2022 and dated 26.05.2023 passed in
CRM-M No.27093 of 2023, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl.) No.8106-8107 of 2023 and the same
was also dismissed as withdrawn on 26.07.2023 and thus, he filed the
present 3rd petition.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
new ground for filing this 3rd petition is that the petitioner is in custody
for approximately 01 year and the trial is proceeding at a very slow
pace.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits
that apart from the present FIR, the petitioner is involved in 09 other
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:162659
FIRs also, however, he is on bail in all the cases. For a ready reference,
the details of the other FIRs, registered against the petitioner, in which
he is on bail, is as under:-
Sr. FIR Dated Under Police Station Status
No. Nos. Sections & District
1. 60 31.03.2008 25/54/59 of Goraya, On Bail
Arms Act District (granted by
Jalandhar this Court vide
order dated
27.10.2022
passed in
CRM-M
No.48435 of
2022)
2. 64 01.04.2008 18/61/85 of Goraya, Already
NDPS Act District Undergone
Jalandhar
3. 09 12.01.2012 420, 465, Phillaur, On Bail
468, 471, District (granted by
120-B IPC Jalandhar this Court vide
order dated
19.09.2023
passed in
CRM-M
No.37182 of
2023)
4. 59 11.04.2015 380, 379, Lalru, District On Bail
382, 420, Patiala (granted by
467, 468, learned trial
471, 473 Court vide
IPC and order dated
25/54/59 of 09.11.2022)
Arms Act
5. 69 01.01.2015 420, 170, Lalru, District On Bail
171, 465, Patiala
468, 471
IPC
6. 69 01.05.2015 420, 471, Handesra, On Bail
170, 171, Dera Bassi, (granted by
465, 468 District S.A.S learned trial
IPC Nagar, Mohali Court vide
order dated
09.11.2022)
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:162659
7. 174 22.12.2022 223, 224 Majitha Road, On Bail
IPC Amritsar (granted by
Commissioner learned trial
ate Court vide
order dated
24.04.2023 by
JMIC,
Amritsar)
8. 157 10.12.2009 420, 465, Sudhar, On Bail
467, 468, Jagraon, (granted by
471, 120-B Ludhiana. learned trial
IPC Court)
9. 59 31.03.2008 170, 420, Goraya, On Bail
465, 468, District (granted by
471 IPC Jalandhar this Court vide
order dated
19.09.2023
passed in
CRM-M
No.37187 of
2023)
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits
that there is no evidence available on record to prove that the petitioner
has made the aforesaid call to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-
Division Phillaur and uttered vulgar words and threatened him. He also
submits that the police has already seized the passport of the petitioner,
bearing No.U0942693 valid from 06.02.2020 to 05.202.2030 and thus,
the petitioner cannot flee from the process of law.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioned has placed
reliance upon the judgment "Prabhakar Tewari vs State of U.P. and
another", (2020) 11 SCC 648, to submit that merely other cases are
pending against the petitioner, this factor by itself cannot be the basis
for refusal of prayer for bail. He also placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs
State of U.P. and another", 2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:162659
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application 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 as
under:-
"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."
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner lastly, submits
that the investigation in the present case has been completed as the
challan stands presented before the learned trial Court and even charges
have been framed against the petitioner and out of total 09 PWs, cited in
the list of witnesses, none has been examined so far and being the
magestrial trial, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more
time.
Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by Investigating
Officer, has opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that the
petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender on 09.05.2013, and was
arrested on 28.08.2022 and remained in custody till 21.12.2022,
thereafter, he again escaped from hospital and then, was re-arrested on
24.04.2023. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender
involved in as many as 09 other cases and committed serious crime.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:162659
record.
Without commenting anything on merits of the case,
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prabhakar Tewari's case (supra) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's
case (supra), and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody
for the last 01 year approximately; the investigation is completed;
challan stands presented; charges have been framed against the
petitioner; the offences are triable by the Magistrate and out of total 09
PWs, none has been examined till date and the conclusion of the trial is
likely to take considerable time, this petition is allowed and the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail during trial on his
furnishing heavy bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate.
However, apart from conditions that may be imposed by
the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned, if any, the
petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: -
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence
oral or documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar
to the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to
the police authorities and shall not change his cell-
phone number without permission of the trial
Court.
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:162659
(vii) The petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay
the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the Court.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and
those which may be imposed by the trial Court, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
18.12.2023
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
