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
17 paragraphs · 351 wordsManjari Nehru Kaul, J
The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 133, dated 13.08.2018, under
Sections 302, 307, 452, 34, 120-B, 201 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Islamabad, District Police
Commissionerate Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 18th August, 2018 and only 02 out of the 46 prosecution
witnesses cited so far have been examined till date. Hence, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. He further contends that in
fact, the false implication of the petitioner is evident from the fact that neither was he named in the FIR in question and even during the investigation
by the police, the petitioner was not found present at the place of occurrence and was allegedly standing outside the place of occurrence. Still further,
there was no attribution to him with respect to any injury having been inflicted on any of the injured including the deceased.
Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from SI Jagjit
Singh, has submitted that the trial in the instant case has been delayed due to the outbreak of pandemic COVID-19. He has also not been able to
controvert the submissions made by the opposite counsel with respect to the role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged crime.
Heard.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as
the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The petition as such is
allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed
hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.