Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Singh @ Deepu vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010497
213 2024:PHHC:010497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59227-2023
DECIDED ON: 25.01.2024
DEEPAK SINGH @ DEEPU .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Partap Singh Pathania, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Sitta, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439
Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.81, dated 02.09.2022
(Annexure P-1), under Sections 365 and 34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 120-B of IPC
added later on and thereafter Sections 307, 148, 149 and 34 of IPC was removed
vide Rapat No.4 dated 04.09.2022 and further Section 302 of IPC was added vide
Rapat No.15 dated 07.09.2022 and further Section 202, 204, 212 & 216 of IPC has
been added vide Rapat No.35 dated 15.12.2022), registered at Police Station Sadar
Pathankot, District Pathankot.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only attribution
against the petitioner is on hearsay evidence that too on a disclosure statement of
one Rahul that the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused was discussing that
the legs of Navdeep Totka (deceased) should have been chopped with the sword
apart from that no incriminating material against the present petitioner is available
with the Investigating Agency to connect him with the commissioning of offence
either under Sections 302 & 307 or 365 of IPC.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010497
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. According to the custody certificate, the petitioner has
suffered incarceration of 10 months and 6 days. He submits that the allegations are
serious in nature against the petitioner, who had planned to chop the legs of
deceased, but could not succeed apart from that he candidly submits that no other
incriminating material is available with the prosecution.
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that except the statement of Rahul,
there is no other incriminating material available to connect the petitioner with the
commissioning of offence and the petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2023, wherein
charges were framed on 27.09.2023 and since then out of total 42 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined, which is sufficient to convince this Court that trial
will certainly take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which 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.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
6. The present petition, is hereby allowed.
7. 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)
25.01.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010497
2 of 2
