IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. M-16619 of 2009
Date of decision : 31.07.2009
Bakhtawar Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab.
Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for regular bail in a complaint case titled as
Prem Singh Vs. Jatinder Singh and Ors. under Sections 143, 452, 326, 323,
148, 149 IPC pending in the Court of JMIC Anandpur Sahib.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had
been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
326, 148, 149 IPC. According to the counsel, the case is triable by the
Magistrate. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody for almost 2
months by now. According to the counsel, present complaint is a
counter-blast to the FIR registered at the instance of petitioner’s side.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has, however, opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner
remained a proclaimed offender during the pendency of the trial.
It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court
Crl. Misc No. M-16619 of 2009 -2-
praying for anticipatory bail (Crl. Misc. No. M-26340 of 2008). The
petition was disposed of by an order, operative part whereof reads as under:-
“As the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed
offender, he is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial
court within a fortnight from today, his prayer for regular bail
shall be considered and decided on the same day. The trial
court may, if deemed appropriate, take into consideration the
fact that the petitioner has been summoned in a complaint
case, and has been appearing befor ethe Court pursuant to
interim orders passed by this Court.”
After petitioner surrendered before the trial court pursuant to
the aforesaid order, he is in custody.
Keeping in view the fact that case is triable by the Magistrate
and petitioner has been summoned pursuant to a complaint case, no useful
purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody during the
pendency of the trial. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ropar. This, however, will be subject to heavy surety and any
other condition which the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
31.07.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE