Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jainder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056650
CRM-M-13680 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:056650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CRM-M-13680 of 2024
Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
Jainder Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Anosh Samson, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
This is a petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.190, dated 28.08.2023, under Sections 379-B(2), 341 and 411 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District
Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the case.
As per the allegations qua the present petitioner narrated in the
FIR and according to the arguments made before this Court on behalf of the
petitioner, he was driving an Activa which is stated to be a stolen one.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not at all aware of
the fact of theft if any committed by some person but he purchased it as a
bona fide buyer from other co-accused namely, Akash, Sukhchain Singh and
Joban Singh who actually committed the theft/snatching of that Activa
Scooter, as per the version in the FIR itself.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056650
CRM-M-13680 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:056650
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 a habitual
offender as he is involved in other case i.e. in FIR No.247 dated 18.08.2023,
registered at Police Station Civil Line, Batala, however, in that case, he is on
bail but the trial is still pending.
Be that as it may, having gone through the custody certificate,
the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 03 days and
considering the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands filed and
the fact that out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, none has 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 upon 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056650
CRM-M-13680 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:056650
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)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
