Pritam Singh vs State Of Punjab

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 412, dated 17.11.2019, under

Sections 420, 498-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has been in custody since 17th November, 2019, has been falsely implicated in the

case in hand. He further submits that a recovery of Rs. 2.5 lakhs has been allegedly shown to be effected from the petitioner and the co-accused. It

has been further submitted that the similarly situated accused from whom the alleged recovery of Rs. 25,000/- was effected, has since been extended

the concession of regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st May, 2020 (CRM No. M-8265 of 2020, titled as,

“Charanjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjabâ€​).

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from

ASI Daljit Singh, has submitted that the examination of the prosecution witnesses is due to commence on the next date of hearing before the trial

Court. However, he has not been able to controvert the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It has also been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner is involved in an another case of similar nature i.e. FIR No. 10, dated

10.03.2017, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 420 IPC, registered at P.S. Sadar Budhlada. However, he has since been enlarged on bail in

the said case.

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 petitioner, 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.