✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 17 Jul 2024

Manoj Kumar @ Meshi v. State of Punjab

CRM-M No. 32742 of 2024KULDEEP TIWARI3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
17 Jul 2024
Bench
KULDEEP TIWARI

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. Considering the allegations against the petitioner, and the incarceration suffered by the present petitioner, and he is behind the Bars since 05.04.2024, and the co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order (supra), this Court deems it…

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL)

1.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.88 dated 05.04.2024, under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at P.S. Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

2.

The prosecution agency was set into motion on a secret information made by a police informer, to the extent that the petitioner along with the other co-accused have gathered in Haryana Ground, Gyaspura, Ludhiana, and planning to commit robbery, and they are also possessing some illegal weapons, deadly weapons DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2024.07.17 05:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32742-2024 2 kirpan/iron Daah etc. They are also in possession of a car, and a motor-cycle. On the basis of the said secret information, the instant FIR has been registered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR, however, no specific role is attributed qua him. He further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that he along with other co-accused fled away from the spot. He also submits that the petitioner has faced incarceration of more than 3 months, as on today. He in addition submits that no offence whatsoever, is made out after perusal of the instant FIR, and the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. He also relied upon Annexure P/2, whereby, the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the relief of regular bail vide order dated

11.6.2024, passed in CRM-M-28187-2024.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel, has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, and has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel on instructions imparted to him by ASI Deep Chand, submits that the investigation in the instant FIR has already been conducted and the final report has been filed before the learned Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 04.06.2024. He further submits that no witness has been examined so far. DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2024.07.17 05:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32742-2024 3

5.

Considering the allegations against the petitioner, and the incarceration suffered by the present petitioner, and he is behind the Bars since 05.04.2024, and the co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order (supra), this Court deems it fit and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

6.

However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petition only. July 17, 2024 'tiwana' ( KULDEEP TIWARI ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? Yes/No Yes/No DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2024.07.17 05:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 399, 402; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Jul 2024. The bench was KULDEEP TIWARI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CRM-M No. 32742 of 2024). ← Search more judgments