Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh Alias Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141298
CRM-M-44363-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.232-2 CRM-M-44363-2024(O&M)
Date of decision : 28.10.2024
Harjinder Singh @ Sonu ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.87 dated 06.05.2024, under Sections 323, 379-B (2), 148 & 149 IPC,
registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that it is
alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused had caused injuries to the
complainant and had snatched a mobile phone from the complainant. He
further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He
has not been named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to
him. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 05 months and 17
days and is involved in two other criminal cases, however, in one case he is
on bail.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the
petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141298
filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As
per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 05
months and 17 days and is involved in two other cases. He on instructions
from the concerned investigation officer submits that the challan has been
presented and charges have not been framed. Out of a total of 17
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He however,
submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not
entitled to the concession of regular bail.
4. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
5. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, challan has
been presented and charges are yet to be framed. Out of a total 17
prosecution witnesses, none of the prosecution witness have been examined
and the conclusion of the trial will take considerable time. The petitioner has
undergone an actual custody of 05 months and 17 days and there are two
criminal cases registered against him, however, in one case he is on bail.
This Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the
petitioner will not serve any purpose.
6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that
petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is
held 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141298
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced herein-below:-
"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 circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
7. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141298
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.
8. 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.
9 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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
28.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
