High CourtsSingle Bench

Alambir Singh @ Alam vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 P&H CK 0087

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 379B · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 33964 Of 2022 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 365 words

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

This is the second petition that has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 138 dated 22.12.2020, registered under Sections 379-B/34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Chohla Sahib, District Tarn Taran.

The first petition, bearing CRM-M-16696-2021, was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the new ground for filing the present petition is that after the dismissal of the first petition, a period of about one year has lapsed, however, till date no prosecution witness has been examined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per allegations in the FIR, on 22.12.2020, complainant Jagdeep Singh made a complaint that he was going after collecting some amount of installments and when he reached near a bridge, three persons riding on a motorcycle, came and asked him to give everything. In that process, the accused persons snatched complainant's mobile phone and an amount of Rs. 33,150/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 31.12.2020, without there being any direct evidence as he was not named in the FIR and as per complainant's version, the accused persons, who robbed him, were having muffled face, therefore, it will be a matter of trial whether the identity of the petitioner is proved or not.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate, which reflects that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 01 year, 09 months and 23 days. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Hardial Singh, submits that as on today, no prosecution witness has been examined.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in long judicial custody and conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.