High CourtsSingle Bench

Vicky vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 P&H CK 0241

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25 · Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 365, 395, 411
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-33339 of 2011 (O and 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

6 paragraphs · 339 words

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present petition has been filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 34 dated 24.04.2010 registered at Police Station Bariwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib under Sections 395/365/411 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, during pendency of the trial.

2.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted regular bail, however he absented on 9th August, 2011 and non-bailable warrants were issued against him and his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. Thereafter, the petitioner had not appeared before the trial Court on 23rd August, 2011. However, the zimni order dated 20th September, 2011 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate reveals that on that day the accused was in custody.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not appeared before the trial Judge on two dates, however, he is now in custody since 20th September, 2011. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is already languishing behind the bars as an under-trial for the last about six months.

4.

Counsel for the State submits that charges have been framed and the prosecution, in all, has cited 18 witnesses but till today no witness has been examined. The next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court is stated to be 12th March, 2012.

5.

Considering the fact that due to absence of the petitioner, his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State and the petitioner, for the lapse on his part, is already in custody for the last about six months, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner in this case is not called for, as the trial will take a long time to conclude.

6.

Hence, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, during pendency of the trial, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib.