Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Kumar Alias Patwari vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2025
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007784
CRM-M-23711-2024 -1-
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-23711-2024
Date of Decision: 20.01.2025
Jatinder Kumar alias Patwari ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bhandari, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
case FIR No.164 dated 22.12.2016, under Sections 307, 325, 326, 323, 394,
148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District
Hoshiarpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
in custody for 1 year 6 months and 3 days since he was arrested on 13.07.2023.
He further submitted that the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner and
the other accused but the petitioner was not arrested and he was rather declared
as proclaimed offender and therefore, the trial could not proceed against him
whereas the trial proceeded against the other accused, who have since been
acquitted by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P-
2. He further submitted that the witnesses did not support the prosecution story
and therefore, the petitioner may be considered for grant of regular bail since
the trial is proceeding independently after he was arrested. He also submitted
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007784
that since the other accused have been acquitted, on this ground as well, he
may be considered for grant of regular bail.
3. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Bhandari, AAG, Punjab has opposed
the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and while referring to the status report
filed by the DSP, Sub Division City, Hoshiarpur, submitted that it is a case
where the petitioner was one of the main accused and the allegation against
him is with regard to giving of a hammer blow on the centre of the head of the
injured and he absconded and was declared as proclaimed offender and
therefore, the trial could not proceed against him and it proceeded against the
other accused although they have been acquitted but the petitioner was later on
arrested on 13.07.2023. He further submitted that although no witnesses have
been examined till date and the trial is proceeding against the present petitioner
only, but there is every likelihood and a strong apprehension that in case the
petitioner is released on regular bail, then he may again abscond and may also
affect the material witnesses. He also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual
offender and is involved in three more cases i.e. FIR No.22, dated 28.03.2019
under Sections 379-B, 392, 397, 323, 341 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act
registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiapur, FIR No.90, dated
23.07.2017, under Sections 307, 148, 149, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms
Act registered at Police Station City, District Hoshiarpur and FIR No.11, dated
07.02.2018, under Sections 379-B and 411 IPC, registered at Police Station
Sadar, District Hoshiarpur and considering the conduct of the petitioner, he is
not entitled for grant of regular bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for 1 year 6 months and 3
days and as per the facts so stated by the learned counsel for the parties, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007784
petitioner was one of the accused in which allegation against him is of giving
hammer blow on the centre of the head of the injured. The petitioner was
declared as proclaimed offender because he was absconding but the trial
commenced pertaining to the other co-accused, who have since been acquitted.
Although it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
witnesses did not support the prosecution version but so far as the present
petitioner is concerned, before considering his prayer for grant of regular bail,
his previous conduct also has to be seen. The petitioner absconded and was
declared as proclaimed offender and therefore, the trial could not proceed
against him and now the trial has started against him although he is in custody
for 1 year 6 months and 3 days. The petitioner is a habitual offender and is
involved in three more cases.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of
the view that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also
considering the conduct of the petitioner and the gravity of the offence
involved, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby
dismissed.
7. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the purpose
of decision of present petition.
20.01.2025 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
