Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basant Kumar@Basanta@Fauji@Mithu vs State Of Punjab on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063841
CRM-M No.23930 of 2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
203
CRM-M No.23930 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Basant Kumar @ Basanta @ Fauji @ Mithu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate
and Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this 2nd petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.0115 dated 21.11.2022, registered under
Sections 379-B, 120-B IPC (Section 201 and 394 IPC added later) at
Police Station City Morinda, District Ropar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
allegations in the FIR, on 15.11.2022 the complainant Davinder Dutt
was going from his house to Kainaur on his scooter bearing registration
No.PB-71-B-8023 and at about 2:30 PM, when he reached near Channi
Medical Store, Main Bazar Morinda, a person wearing white colour
Kamiz-Pajama and black colour Jacket took lift from him by stating
that leave him at Saheri. He was also having Parna on his head. A lady
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063841
and another person present there told the complainant that he is a great
Saint who is doing the Kar-Sewa in Gurudwara Sahib, on which he
asked the said person to sit on the rear seat of his scooter for leaving
him to village Saheri and when they reached near Gurudwara Sahib of
village Saheri, the said person asked him to leave him near Bus Stand
Saheri, where the aforesaid lady and person who were present near
Channi Medical Store along with three unknown persons on two
motorcycles were present. All of them caught hold of him and brought
him to Bus Stand Saheri. He became unconscious and when he regained
consciousness, the gold chain along with locket worn by him around his
neck, gold Karra and two gold rings worn by him in his hands were
found missing. The said persons snatched his above said gold
ornaments by giving him beatings. Thereafter, on the basis of the
statement made by complainant Davinder Dutt, the impugned FIR has
been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the petitioner has not been named
in the FIR and his name surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-
accused Fauji, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 13.03.2024, passed in CRM-M No.5311 of 2023. He
contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 04 months
and 18 days. Lastly, he submits that the investigation in the present case
is complete; charges have been framed and all the prosecution
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063841
witnesses have been examined and the case before the trial Court is
now fixed for 08.05.2024, for defence evidence and the conclusion of
the trial is likely to take some time and no fruitful purpose would be
served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while placing on
record the custody certificate dated 07.05.2024, has opposed the prayer
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He further submits that
petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in as many as 25
other FIRs registered under the Excise Act, therefore, he does not
deserve the concession of regular bail.
5. Refuting the above contention of the learned State counsel,
learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in all the other Excise
cases, the details of which is given in document (Annexure P-4), the
petitioner has either been acquitted or is on bail. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another",
2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend that the facts and circumstances of the
present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail
application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that
the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis
of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the
duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the
case in which he has been charged and other
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063841
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Without commenting anything on merits of the case,
considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year,
04 months and 18 days; investigation is complete; charges have been
framed; all the prosecution witnesses stands examined; co-accused of
the petitioner namely Fauji, is already released on bail; the petitioner is
either acquitted or released on bail in all the other FIRs registered under
the Excise Act and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time,
this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on
bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to
conditions that may be imposed by the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions: -
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence
oral or documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar
to the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with
the trial Court.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063841
(vi) The petitioner shall give his mobile number to the
police authorities and shall not change his mobile
number without prior permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay
the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and
those which may be imposed by the trial Court, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
08.05.2024
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
