Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjot Singh Alias Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051414
CRM-M-1165 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:051414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219
CRM-M-1165 of 2024
Date of Decision: 16.04.2024
Sarabjot Singh @ Sonu ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.87, dated 16.04.2022, under Sections 365, 379-B, 506 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959,
registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed qua him in
the FIR. He further submits that he was nominated in the supplementary
statement after the alleged incident. It is also the specific stand that he was not
beneficiary of any amount or transaction which has been transacted between
the complainant and the other co-accused person.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has produced the copy
of the custody certificate, which is taken on record and he prays for dismissal
of the instant petition stating that the petitioner is involved in two other cases
meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. He further submits that in the
supplementary statement, the complainant has categorically named the present
petitioner which has been identified while conducting identification parade.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that investigation is
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051414
CRM-M-1165 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:051414
complete, challan stands filed and charges have also been framed on
01.11.2022 and the fact that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have
been examined so far which is sufficient to infer for this Court that the trial will
take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind the bars for uncertain 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 relying the judgment of the Apex
Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of
this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias
Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the
time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked
into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence
during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases.
In view of the above, petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
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)
16.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
