Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satwinder Pal @ Garry vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040003
214 2024:PHHC:040003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13404-2024
DECIDED ON: 20.03.2024
SATWINDER PAL @ GARRY
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Gourav Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, 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.96, dated 29.10.2023, under
Sections 379-B and 34 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Daresi, District
Ludhiana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a secret information. He further
submits that petitioner is a person of clean antecedents, as he is not involved in any
other case of any nature whatsoever.
3. He has placed reliance upon an order dated 16.02.2024 (Annexure P-
3) passed by this Court in CRM-M-7575-2024, wherein co-accused namely Tushar
@ Tashu has already been granted the concession of regular bail and claims parity.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He does not controvert the fact that co-accused has
already been granted the concession of bail by this Court.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040003
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that co-accused of the petitioner
has already been granted the bail by this Court and the petitioner is not involved in
any other case of any nature, as is evident from the custody certificate, meaning
thereby he is a person of clean antecedents added with the fact that conclusion of
trial shall take sufficient time, as after framing of charges on 15.01.2024, no
prosecution witness has been examined out of total 10, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind bars, which would amount to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India
and is against the principle "bail is a rule and jail is an exception", 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.
6. In view of the above 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.
7. The present petition is hereby allowed.
8. 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)
20.03.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
