Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081620
-1-
CRM-M-28424-2023
2023:PHHC:081620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28424-2023
Date of decision : 06.06.2023
SANDEEP SINGH
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has
been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.082,
dated 13.04.2022, under Sections 458, 427, 382, 506, 148, 149 of IPC
(Section 120-B, 201 & 395 IPC added later vide GD No.39, dated
19.05.2022) and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City
Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case having no role
whatsoever attributed to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
before this Court that the FIR was against unknown persons and by way of a
supplementary statement of the complainant dated 12.04.2022, the present
FIR was got registered on 13.04.2022 against the occurrence, which took
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081620
CRM-M-28424-2023
2023:PHHC:081620
place on 12.04.2022 at about 9:44 PM, delayed by almost 12 hours.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court to the fact that the alleged number of cars recovered by the
Investigating Agency only belongs to co-accused of the petitioner, whereas
recovery of one kappa has been planted upon him without having
mentioning in the challan itself as it was used by the petitioner to implicate
him in the instant FIR. He, therefore, prays for grant of concession of
regular bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the State did not have the custody
certificate of the petitioner but submits that the petitioner is behind the bars
since 22.04.2022, which is more than one year by now for offences under
Sections 458, 427, 382, 506, 148, 149, 120-B, 201 & 395 of IPC. He prays
for dismissal of the present petition.
5. It is an admitted position that investigation in this case is
complete and challan stands presented before the trial Court, where the case
is now fixed for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses after
framing of the charges and therefore, trial will take considerable time to
conclude.
6. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that no useful
purpose would be served keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period, wherein bail is a rule and jail is an exception and it would
also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal
under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again
discussed by this Court, while realising the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081620
CRM-M-28424-2023
2023:PHHC:081620
(Criminal) 131.
7. In view of above, the petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. The present petition stands allowed in the afore-said terms.
9. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
06.06.2023
Harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:081620
3 of 3
