Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211-1
CRM-M-61268-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 03.07.2024
Manpreet Singh
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.110 dated 08.07.2023
registered under Sections 395, 342, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25,27, 29 of
Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Majitha,Amritsar, District Amritsar.
2. The allegations levelled in the present FIR are that, during
intervening night of 07/08.07.2023 at about 12:15 AM, 30-35 persons
entered into godown by scaling the wall. The said persons were armed with
kirchs, kirpans, datars and 2/3 persons were having pistols. They detained all
the six chowkidars in a room and loaded two trucks with wheat. On
checking they came to know that 1063 bags of wheat were stolen, each
weighing 50 Kg. Total stolen wheat was 531 Quintal 50 Kg.
3. Succinctly stated, the allegation against the petitioner is that, he
brought a truck bearing No.MH-04-CG-4697 and stolen wheat was loaded in
said truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas, he has not
committed any offence, as alleged. Moreover, the FIR was initially
CRM-M-61268-2023 (O&M) -2-
registered against unknown person(s) and the petitioner and co-accused have
subsequently been arrayed as accused therein. In fact, the petitioner and his
co-accused were working as labourer in the godown of Pungrain and the
actual dispute between the parties is with regard to payment of wages of the
labour. Owing to this dispute, the present FIR has been registered.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has been in custody since 18.07.2023 and there is no likelihood of
the trial concluding anytime soon, inasmuch as out of total 24 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined till date.
6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered in the case of "Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012)
1 SCC 40, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain
observations regarding release of accused on bail.
7. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated
02.07.2024 in Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody
certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and
12 days and there is no other criminal case pending against him. He also
submits that challan has been presented on 12.10.2023 and charges have
been framed. He also submits that out of a total of 24 prosecution witnesses,
none has been examined till date. In view of the serious allegations against
the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
8. Heard.
9. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the petitioner
is in custody since 18.07.2023. None of the prosecution witness have been
examined despite charges having been framed and further incarceration of
2024.07.04 10:35 the petitioner would not serve any purpose.
CRM-M-61268-2023 (O&M) -3-
10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(V) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
12. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which
are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
July,03 2024
Kavita Nain
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
KAVITA NAIN Whether Reportable: Yes/No
