Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
not M-34852 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-34852 of 2012 Date of Decision:
07. 12.2012 Sarabjot Singh @ Sarabjit Singh @ Saba ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.R.S.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr.D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.
***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
(ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner-Sarabjot Singh @ Sarabjit Singh @ Saba in case FIR No.94 dated 29.07.2012 registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar under Section 394 IPC on the ground that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR and the same has not been explained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence took place during day on a busy road but no eye witness has been cited in the case.
Co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail and only two witnesses have been examined so far against total 11 PWs.
As per the statement of PW-1 Lovely Kumar, the case of the prosecution has not been supported.
The trial may take some time and the petitioner is behind bars for the last more than 04 months and that there is no other case pending against him.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-34852 o”
2. Learned State counsel has not disputed the delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR and also the fact that the petitioner is behind bars for the last more than four months but he opposes the bail on the ground that the motor cycle was recovered from him and it is a case of eye witness.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that admittedly, there was a delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR and the petitioner is behind bars for the last more than four months and only two witnesses have been examined so far and out of these two, PW-1 Lovely Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution and trial may take some time to conclude and no other case is pending against the petitioner, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner is found to be involved in some other case of similar nature, the State is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 07.12.2012 JUDGE gurpreet