Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajanpreet Singh @ Rajan vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056731
CRM-M-19270 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:056731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216
CRM-M-19270 of 2024
Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
Rajanpreet Singh @ Rajan ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, 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.209, dated 26.11.2023, under Sections 186, 353, 307 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959,
registered at Police Station Balongi, District Mohali.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant
FIR, the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the prosecution after
having forged disclosure statement of co-accused Amritpal who is the main
accused in the present FIR. It is a positive case on behalf of the petitioner
before this Court that on the same date, he was implicated in another FIR
No.137 dated 26.11.2023 with the allegation that he was travelling in a car
which was also a stolen vehicle. Learned counsel has referred the order
dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar,
whereby, he was granted regular bail in the FIR No.137 dated 26.11.2023.
In the instant case, the petitioner is in custody since 01.01.2024 meaning
thereby he is behind the bars for almost 4 months.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056731
CRM-M-19270 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:056731
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has produced the copy
of the custody certificate, which is taken on record and he could not
controvert the fact that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in
the instant FIR on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused
person.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that investigation is
complete, challan stands filed on 28.02.2024 and charges are yet to be
framed and the fact that out of total 20 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 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056731
CRM-M-19270 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:056731
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
