Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakhtu Nath vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040012
211 2024:PHHC:040012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13079-2024
DECIDED ON: 20.03.2024
BAKHTU NATH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vikrant Vij, Advocate for
Mr. G.S. Bawa, 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.209, dated 10.08.2023,
under Sections 379-B(2), 473 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District
Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He also asserts that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner relates to snatching of a gold chain alongwith a gold locket,
while riding on a motorcycle under the threat of showing datar. As per the
prosecution story itself, it is only the locket, which was taken out of the gold chain,
once the complainant raised hue and cry and the petitioner fled from the spot, which
is highly improbable and prima facie seems to be a concoction of story.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040012
3. He has placed reliance upon an order dated 29.01.2024 passed by this
Court in CRM-M-3201-2024, wherein co-accused namely Karan Singh @ Karan
Nath 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 prays for dismissal of the present petition on the
ground that the petitioner is involved in another case bearing FIR No.3 dated
26.10.2022, registered at Police Station Maqboolpura.
5. Be that as it may, considering the age of the petitioner i.e., 22 years and
co-accused namely Karan Singh @ Karan Nath has already been granted the
concession of bail by this Court added with the fact that in another case, he is on
bail, moreover investigation is complete, nothing is to be recovered from the
petitioner and he is in custody since 13.08.2023, wherein charges are yet to be
framed, which is sufficient to infer this Court that trial will take long time, no useful
purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period,
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. As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to
pendency of 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, this Court observed that
pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioner cannot be a predicament to
consider the case for anticipatory bail or regular bail, as the evidence of the material
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040012
involved in those FIRs can be treated in those cases alone and not material in
instant FIR against the accused-petitioner to hold him guilty.
7. In the light 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.
8. The present petition, is hereby allowed.
9. 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
3 of 3
