Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil Qureshi vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058104
CRM-M-45198-2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:058104
214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-45198-2023
Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
Sahil Qureshi ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.0094 dated
11.05.2020 registered under Sections 302, 459, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, at
Police Station City Dhuri, Sangrur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been falsely involved in the present case alongwith other co-accused by
assigning a false role. In fact, the complainant had named several accused, just
to ensure the false implication of those persons. Learned counsel further
contends that in the present case, the complainant-Harpreet Kaur has already
been examined as a prosecution witness and she did not identify the present
petitioner before the Court and the chances of his conviction are bleak. Learned
counsel further contends that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on
11.05.2020 and is in custody for the last more than 03 years and 11
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058104
CRM-M-45198-2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:058104
months. He further contends that since the material witnesse has already been
examined by the prosecution, there are no chances of tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further contends that even the trial has
delayed by the prosecution, just to ensure the petitioner remains in custody for a
longer period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ranjan
Dwivedi Vs. CBI, through the Director General, 2012(8) SCC 495; 2012 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 880" and "Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others v. Public
Prosecutor", AIR 1978 SC 429.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that
the petitioner had stabbed Gurdeep Singh, since deceased in multiple times and
very serious allegations have been levelled against him. He further contends
that the petitioner may commit similar offence, if released on bail by this Court.
He further admits that no other criminal case was ever registered against the
present petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2020 and is
in custody for the last more than 03 years and 11 months. Even the prosecution
has not been able to conclude the prosecution evidence so far. Moreover, the
material witness i.e Harpreet Kaur has been examined as PW-1 and she did not
identify the petitioner before the trial Court. No doubt, the allegations levelled
by the complainant in the present FIR indicate the seriousness of the offence
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058104
CRM-M-45198-2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:058104
and specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner,
however, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody as an under-trial prisoner
for an indefinite period. In fact, any detention for a longer period, without
completion of trial by the trial Court, is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such
facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the
dates fixed for hearing of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court
proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court
concerned.
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already
not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he
shall swear an affidavit to that effect.
(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned
Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number
of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the
pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of
residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the
concerned Court/learned Trial Court.
(vi) In case, the petitioner involves in any other criminal activity,
during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058104
CRM-M-45198-2023 -4- 2024:PHHC:058104
(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties
and may also impose any other condition, in accordance
with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds
of the petitioner.
(viii) The petitioner shall report every 1st and 3rd Monday in
English calander month to the concerned SHO till the
conclusion of the trial and SHO shall mark his presence by
making an entry in the rojnamcha. In case, he does not
report on every 1st and 3rd Monday to the concerned SHO, it
shall be viewed seriously and the concession granted to him
shall be liable to be cancelled and the State of Punjab shall
be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this
regard.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
29.04.2024. JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
