High CourtsSingle Bench

Ranjodh Singh @ Johny vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 October 2020 · Citation: (2020) 10 P&H CK 0099

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.S. Madaan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379B
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 7201 Of 2020 (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

8 paragraphs · 628 words

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner Ranjodh Singh @ Johny, aged about 30 years, an accused in FIR No.136 dated 09.09.2019, for an offence under Section 379-B IPC, registered with Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.

Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution story are, that the criminal machinery in this case was set into motion by complainant Rakesh Bhatia son of Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhatia, resident of H.No.27, Satnam Avenue, Batala Road, Amritsar, who in the written complaint submitted by him at Police Station Valla, Amritsar stated that on 09.09.2019 at about 11.30 AM, while he was driving his motorcycle make CD Deluxe 100 Hero Honda, bearing registration No.PB02-AW-3872 and was in the area of around Valla GT road, he had slowed down his motorcycle; in the meanwhile, two young persons came from Verka side on a motorcycle; the pillion rider of the motorcycle pounced upon his shirt and took away his mobile phone MI Redmi Note 4 from the pocket on left side; he followed the motorcycle of the culprits but they managed to escape towards village Jetha Wala; according to the complainant, he had read the number plate on which it was written 'Mudhla' and according to his memory, the number was PB02-DJ-4525; he stated that he could identify the accused if they came before him. Formal FIR in the matter was registered. The petitioner/accused was arrested in this case on 29.10.2019.

Petitioner/accused had filed a petition for grant of regular bail before the Court of Sessions at Amritsar. Said petition was assigned to Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who vide order dated 30.01.2020, dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, he has knocked at the door of this Court, craving for grant of similar relief, which request is being opposed by learned State counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

As per reply filed on behalf of the official respondents in the form of affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Amritsar City, the motorcycle used in the incident on verification was found to be registered in the name of Lakhbir Singh, father of the present petitioner and the said motorcycle was recovered from his possession. During the course of investigation, the complainant had identified the motorcycle and petitioner/accused being one of the culprits, therefore, there could not be any possibility of any doubt regarding his identification and taking part in the commission of crime. The petitioner is stated to be a serving Constable of Punjab Police, posted in Police District Amritsar Rural and on account of registration of this case, he has been placed under suspension by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar Rural. The police officials are expected to maintain law and order during the course of their duties and it is really shocking that the petitioner serving in Punjab Police as a Constable, himself took part in the incident of snatching of mobile phone of the complainant. Such criminal acts on his part are to be viewed with all the seriousness. The challan in this case is said to have been filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction and the matter is pending trial. The guilt of the accused shall be determined during the trial. An apprehension has been expressed in the written reply that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is chances of his influencing the prosecution witnesses, prejudicing the trial. Thus, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, no ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out. The petition being without merit stands dismissed.

Anything said herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.