High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajan Kumar Alias Mani. vs State Of Punjab.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0274

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hari Pal Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 379B, 411
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. M Of 39086, 44313 Of 2020
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

26 paragraphs · 447 words

Hari Pal Verma, J

The matter has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of COVID-19.

This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail filed by petitioners Rajan Kumar alias Mani

and Manpreet Singh, as the same have arisen from common FIR

No.210 dated 29.09.2020 under Sections 379-B and 411 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

However, for convenience and clarity, the detailed order is being passed in CRM-M-39086 of 2020 titled as Rajan Kumar alias Mani Versus State of

Punjab.

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of complainant Amandeep Singh. As per the FIR, on 18.09.2020 in the evening time, the

complainant along with Pankaj Kumar were going on Activa. The complainant was sitting on the back seat of Activa and was carrying a laptop of his

shop. At about 08.20 P.M. when they crossed the Chandigarh Children Hospital, the accused (petitioners herein) came on a motorcycle and snatched

his laptop and fled away from the spot. The complainant and Pankaj Kumar chased the accused, but when they reached in front of Sada Ram Bansal

School and tried to catch them, the accused persons fled away on the motorcycle after pushing them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that apart from the fact that there is no other case against the petitioners, they are in custody since

29.09.2020. The recovery of laptop has already been effected from petitioner Rajan Kumar alias Mani and the trial is not likely to be concluded in

near future.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody of the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Noticing the fact that no other case has been pointed out against the petitioners and they are in custody since 29.09.2020 and the trial is not likely to be

concluded in near future, this Court finds that the petitioners deserve to be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds

to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

It is made clear that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case of similar nature, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek

cancellation of their bail in this case.

The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

case without being influenced with these observations in any manner.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.