Judgment:
CRM-M No.11013 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-11013 of 2014 Date of decision :
21. 04.2014 Jagpreet Singh @ Laddi Moa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Garg, AAG, Punjab for the State. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner-Jagpreet Singh @ Laddi Moa son of Jagtar Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.205 dated 13.08.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 336, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over Sumit Kumar 2014.04.21 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.11013 of 2014 -2- the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this behalf.
4. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that there is no direct evidence on record against the petitioner as acknowledged by learned State counsel. The case of the prosecution revolves around the circumstantial evidence. The present case was registered in the wake of statement of complainant-Major Singh, father of deceased Sukhdev Singh. The complainant while appearing as PW-2 in the Court did not support the prosecution version. Sequelly, PW-3-Gurmukh Singh another material witness has also resiled from his earlier statement. Instead of supporting, they have demolished the prosecution version in its entirety. What would be the evidentiary value of such statements of complainant PW-2 and material witness PW-3, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.
5. Be that as it may, petitioner was arrested on 15.09.2012. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. Moreover, he is not named in the FIR. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. 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 Sumit Kumar 2014.04.21 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.11013 of 2014 -3- be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. 21.04.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge Sumit Kumar 2014.04.21 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document