Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-35307 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.1.2014.
Om Parkash --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Grewal, D.A.G., Punjab.
None for respondent no.2.
*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J As per office report, respondent no.2 stands duly served, however, there is no representation on his behalf.
The present petition has been preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in criminal complaint case no.104/1/2006 dated 25.9.2006 titled as Ranjit Singh versus Com.
Piare Lal and others under sections 323, 342, 452, 506, 148, 149 I.P.C pending in the court of J.M.I.C., Jalandhar.
Briefly noticed, the complainant/respondent no.2 Ranjit Singh filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner as also 11 other persons alleging that in the village Lallian Kalan a water tank had been built on account of financial aid having been provided by one Jujhar Singh, N.R.I and about 70 water connections had been provided in the village, wherein water was served from such tank.
It was further alleged that Com.
Piare Lal was made the caretaker of the water tank.
Further accusation was that the residents of the village as also the complainant had been repeatedly Lucky 2014.01.16 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No.M-35307 of 2013(O&M) -2- requesting Piare Lal to install an electricity connection so that the water from the tank may be shared by all the residents.
It is further alleged that Piare Lal as also co-accused including the present petitioner used to take direct electricity supply from the main line and the electricity connection was not installed.
Allegation was that the accused against such factual backdrop used to threaten the complainant and further extort a sum of Rs.50/- per month from the residents of the village for taking water from the tank.
Occurrence is stated to have taken place on 14.8.2006 at 8.40 P.M when the complainant was in his S.T.D shop and all the accused persons including the petitioner forcibly tress passed into his shop and raised a lalkara.
The complainant is stated to have been manhandled by the accused and it is alleged that he was given filthy abuses.
It is on such basis that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner and 11 other co-accused.
Upon cognizance of such complaint having been taken, all the accused were summoned to face trial for commission of offence under sections 452, 341, 506 and 149 I.P.C and subsequently charges under section 452, 506 and 341 I.P.C were framed against the petitioner and other co-accused.
The conceded position of fact is that during the pendency of the trial the petitioner as also one other co-accused namely Chinda absented from the proceedings and accordingly vide order dated 13.5.2010 the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the J.M.I.C., Jalandhar.
Apparently, the petitioner joined trial and surrendered before the Trial Court.
His bail application was declined and accordingly, he has been in custody since 7.5.2013.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the judgement dated 6.9.2011 rendered by the J.M.I.C., Jalandhar at Annexure CRM No.M-35307 of 2013(O&M) -3- P-4, wherein all the other co-accused in the complaint lodged by respondent no.2, stand acquitted.
In the light of such factual backdrop wherein the petitioner has joined proceedings and has been in custody since 7.5.2013, it would be an appropriate case for acceptance of the present petition filed under section 439 Cr.P.C.Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.
The petitioner be released on bail subject to satisfaction of C.J.M., Jalandhar.
Petition allowed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE January 15, 2014.
lucky