Vijay Sandeep @ Happy vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Vijay Sandeep @ Happy son of Chuni Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused namely Jarnail Singh, Rajbir Singh Bhullar, Rajbir Singh @ Raju and Yadwinder Singh etc., vide FIR No. 131 dated 09.09.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, neither the name is mentioned nor any specific role or particular injury is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. The present case was registered against the accused, in the wake of statement of complainant Sukhraj Singh son of Guravtar Singh. He while appearing as PW-8 did not support the prosecution version and has resiled form his earlier statement (Annexure P-5) in the Court. Not only that noticing that all the eye witnesses cited by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case in the witness box in the Court, Jarnail Singh, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (R.P. Nagrath J.), by virtue of order dated 21.02.2014, rendered in CRM-M No. 18489 of 2013 titled as ''Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab'' (Annexure P-6). Therefore, in that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.

Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 18.09.2011. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.