High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Sharma vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 October 2018 · Citation: (2018) 10 P&H CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hari Pal Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 177, 199, 200, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No.42623 Of 2018
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

17 paragraphs · 328 words

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR

No.175 dated 01.06.2018 under Sections 177, 199, 200, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.5, District

Ludhiana.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he has furnished bail bonds and surety bonds on behalf of accused Parminder Singh son of Balwinder

Singh by using forged voter card and furnished false affidavit by impersonating himself as Arun Dang son of Joginder Pal in the Court and the

accused Parminder Singh has been declared proclaimed offender by the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after submission of challan, though charges have been framed against the petitoner but prosecution

evidence has yet not been started. She further submits that the offence in this case is triable by a Magistrate and the petitioner is in custody since

01.06.2018. Trial will take sufficient time for its conclusion.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Baldev Singh, submits that the allegations against the petitioner do not warrant his release on bail, as

the State is in the process of collecting evidence against the petitioner and there is every possibility that the petitioner might have committed similar

other offences.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the offences so committed by the petitioner are triable by a Magistrate and

no other case has been pointed out against him, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2018 and trial in the case will take

long time and no useful purpose will be served to keep the petitioner in custody, I deem it appropriate to release him on regular bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court.