Deepak Khanna @ Tushar Khanna vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 9391 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084527




CRM-M-50639-2022 (O&M)                             -1-    2023:PHHC:084527


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRM-M-50639-2022 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Decision: 05.07.2023

Deepak Khanna @ Tushar Khanna

                                                                       ....Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus
State of Punjab

                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:      Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

              Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.

                              ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present is a third petition filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.46

dated 27.03.2015, under Sections 392,382,412, 465,467,468,469,471, 120-B

IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Urban Estate,

District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

has faced incarceration for 2 years, 9 months and 14 days and submitted that

although this is a third successive bail petition and earlier bail petitions were

dismissed on merits but now considering the long custody of the petitioner

which is 2 years and 9 months, he may be considered for the grant of regular

bail.

3. Learned counsel has further relied upon Annexure A-1 and has

brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was earlier declared as a

proclaimed offender in the present case and was subsequently arrested and in

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084527

CRM-M-50639-2022 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:084527

this way, the trial has not commenced qua him earlier and it had commenced

qua the other co-accused who have since been acquitted vide judgment dated

18.11.2019. He submitted that thereafter when the petitioner was arrested, then

the trial is commencing qua the petitioner. He submitted when the earlier bail

petition was filed, at that point of time the custody of the petitioner was 1

year and 10 months and this Court had dismissed the bail petition on two

grounds. Firstly that the petitioner had remained as a proclaimed offender for

about six years and secondly that the State had expressed apprehension that in

case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may again abscond and may

also repeat the offence considering the antecedents of the petitioner. He

submitted that now the custody of the petitioner is very large which is 2 years

and 9 months and although the petitioner is involved in number of other cases

but the pendency of the other cases against the petitioner cannot become a

ground for denial of bail to the petitioner in view of the long custody and has

pressed for the grant of regular bail purely on the basis of long custody of the

petitioner.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab has opposed

the grant of bail on the ground that earlier also the bail petition of the

petitioner was dismissed since he had remained as a proclaimed offender for

six years. He submitted that now in case the petitioner is released on bail,

then he may again abscond. So far as some of the other co-accused are

concerned, they have since been acquitted.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A perusal of the order of the acquittal would show that it has also

been observed that nothing was recovered in the present case from the

possession of any of the accused and no other overt act has been brought on

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084527

CRM-M-50639-2022 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:084527

record to have been committed by them. Although the petitioner had remained

proclaimed offender for six years and ordinarily the petitioner would not be

entitled for the grant of regular bail, more so, when earlier also his bail petition

was dismissed on the same grounds but as of today his custody is too large

which is 2 years, 9 months and 14 days and therefore, this Court is of the view

that purely on the basis of the long custody of the petitioner, he is entitled for

the grant of regular bail.

6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not

required in any other case.

7. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as

an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose

of deciding the present petition only.

05.07.2023                              (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh                                           JUDGE
         Whether speaking                     :   Yes/No
         Whether reportable                   :   Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084527

                                     3 of 3