Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan @ Kanan vs U.T. Chandigarh on 19 January, 2023
-1-
CRM-M-47917 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47917 of 2022
Date of decision: 19.01.2023
Karan @ Kanan
...........Petitioner
versus
U.T. Chandigarh
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, APP, U.T., Chandigarh.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
In terms of order dated 21.10.2022, status report by way of
affidavit of Ms. Palak Goel, D.A.N.I.P.S. SDPO/East Sub Division, Sector
26, Chandigarh, has been filed on behalf of the respondent, which is taken
on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.183 dated 22.09.2021 under
Sections 379-A, 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 26,
Chandigarh.
According to the prosecution, present case was registered on
the complaint of Dalip Kumar wherein he reported that on 22.09.2021 he
was going to eat ice-cream alongwith his son. When he reached near BDC
Light Point, Sector 26, Chandigarh a person Karan @ Kanan (present
petitioner) came and asked to give his mobile phone but he denied.
1 of 4
CRM-M-47917 of 2022
Petitioner snatched his mobile phone MI-9 pro and Rs.700/- from his hand
forcibly. During investigation, petitioner was arrested on the same day and
snatched mobile phone was recovered from the pocket of his pant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2021; investigation
in the present case is complete; challan has been presented; charges have
been framed and out of total 09 prosecution witnesses two witnesses have
been examined, including the complainant, who has been partly examined
and now the case is fixed before the trial Court on 10.02.2023. He further
submits that trial may take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, no
fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind bars.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the
grant of grant of regular bail to the petitioner while placing custody
certificate on record on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender as
he is involved in three more cases. However, she could not dispute that
investigation in the present case is complete; challan has been presented;
charges have been framed and out of total 09 prosecution witnesses two
witnesses have been examined, including the complainant, who has been
partly examined and now the case is fixed before the trial Court on
10.02.2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the three
other cases registered against the petitioner, he is on bail and mere pendency
of other cases cannot be made ground to deny the bail to the petitioner in
view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
2 of 4
CRM-M-47917 of 2022
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 831.
To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2)
SCC 382, wherein it has been held 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."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, which, according
to the custody certificate is 01 year 03 months and 27 days; investigation is
complete; challan has been presented; charges have been framed and out of
09 witnesses, two prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, have
been examined and trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude,
however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
19.01.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 4
CRM-M-47917 of 2022
4 of 4
