Shiv Kumar Alias Shiv vs State Of Punjab

Raj Mohan Singh, J

Both the cases have been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Vide this common order, CRM-M No.34744 of 2020 and CRM-M No.37471 of 2020 are being decided. Since both the cases have arisen out of one

FIR, therefore, facts are being noticed from CRM-M No.34744 of 2020.

Both the petitioners seek grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.132 dated 05.11.2019, registered under Section 379-B

IPC (offence under Section 411 IPC added later on) at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

The allegations are that on 03.11.2019, the complainant Balwinder Singh went to Delhi for purchasing some articles. Since there was less profit in the

articles, therefore, he returned back without purchase. He was travelling in a train from Delhi to Mukerian. He had to take orders for some cosmetic

items, therefore, he took route via Gurdaspur. At about 5.00 A.M., he alighted from the train at Railway Station, Mukerian and was going on feet from

Mukerian Railway Station to Mukerian market. When he reached near Jama Agency railway road, then two youths with definite physique and

nomenclature came towards him and made him to fall and threw him in the bushes and snatched away his bag containing Rs.5 lakhs, mobile phone

having sim card, one bed-sheet, T-shirt and some cosmetic articles. The complainant kept on searching the accused of his own and ultimately lodged

the FIR on 05.11.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that after lodging of this FIR on 05.11.2019, the complainant made a supplementary challan on

12.11.2019 on the basis of CCTV, identifying the two original youths as Karan and Shiv Kumar. Both were already known to him. He also named

Vishal Sharma on the ground that all the three were known to Ajay Kumar @ Baiya, who is his business partner. Further allegations are that Ajay

Kumar @ Baiya also went along with him for purchasing material from Delhi. He was in the knowledge of everything. He mixed up some intoxicant

in his tea and took away thousand rupees on 05.11.2019 after boarding the trian in continuation of conspiracy between Ajay Kumar @ Baiya, Vishal

Sharma and their companions namely Karan and Shiv Kumar.

By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel further submitted that if Karan Kumar and Shiv Kumar were already known to the complainant, then

there was no occasion for the complainant not to disclose their names in the FIR itself. The complainant waited for recording of his supplementary

statement on 12.11.2019 and on the basis of alleged CCTV recording and thereafter he allegedly identified the petitioners-Shiv Kumar @ Shiv and

Karan Kumar. The story of connivance has been coined in which the date of boarding the train has been shown to be 05.11.2019.

Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has introduced falsehood after seeing the CCTV coverage. Co-accused Vishal Sharma has

already been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.02.2020 passed in CRM-M No.8504 of 2020. Petitioner-Shiv Kumar @ Shiv is in

custody since 06.12.2019.

In case of petitioner-Karan Kumar, he has applied for regular bail in his second attempt. Earlier petition was got as dismissed as withdrawn on

30.07.2020. He is in custody since 02.12.2019.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioners are involved in heinous offence and they have been identified by

the complainant on the basis of CCTV coverage. An amount of Rs.4,80,000/- has been recovered from both the accused persons.

Looking to the aforesaid facts, keeping in view the custody period of the accused and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic,

I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail.

In view of above, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.