Harpreet Singh Son Of Thana Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 July, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH



                                 Criminal Misc. No. M-12610 of 2009 (O/M).
                                            Date of Decision : July 07, 2009.

Harpreet Singh son of Thana Singh, resident of Deena Nath Tyre Street, Near
Bus Stand, Mansa, District Mansa.
                                                         ...... Petitioner.

                                   Versus.
State of Punjab.
                                                            ..... Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:-     Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab,
              for the respondent-State.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not

been named in the F.I.R., however, on a statement of the prosecution witness-

Binder Singh, he has been attributed to a simple injury on the forehead with a

daang. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2009

and there are 18 witnesses, out of which only one doctor has been examined.

He further submits that all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail and no

useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.

On the other hand, State counsel submits that the next date fixed

before the trial court is 23.07.2009. He contends that the petitioner has been

declared proclaimed offender and thereafter, he has been arrested on

26.02.2009.

Criminal Misc. No. M-12610 of 2009. -2-

The basic contention, which has been raised by counsel for the

petitioner with regard to the fact that the petitioner has not been named in

the F.I.R. and that only a simple injury has been attributed to him and that

the petitioner is in the jail since 26.02.2009, apart from the fact that all the

co-accused have been enlarged on bail and also keeping in view the fact that

there are 18 witnesses were to be examined and only one witness i.e. doctor

has been examined, the trial of the case would not likely to conclude soon

is not disputed. With regard to submission of counsel for the State that the

petitioner has earlier been declared proclaimed offender, and therefore, may

abscond, suffice to say that the trial court would see to it that heavy

surety/security be furnished by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The

petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to satisfaction of Trial

Court/Duty Magistrate, Mansa, on furnishing heavy surety/security.

The present petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
July 07, 2009.

sjks.