Judgment:
CRM No.M-24325 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH248CRM No.M-24325 of 2014 Date of Decision:30.07.2014 Resham Singh @ Banti .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Priyanka Sadar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Resham Singh @ Banti son of Balwinder Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Mandeep Kaur, Manjit Singh, Balwider Singh and Rani etc., vide FIR No.173 dated 07.10.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 372, 373 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Moga City.
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 of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. Precisely, the prosecution, inter alia, claimed that Rani Seema 2014.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-24325 of 2014 2 complainant-Lakhwinder Kaur had earlier left her parental house and had gone with one Gurpreet Singh. Then, she started residing in the house of her relatives. Thereafter, Mandeep Kaur provided her accommodation in her house. The only allegation assigned to the present petitioner is that he along with his other co-accused have hatched a conspiracy to sell the complainant to some needful person. Neither any other specific role nor any other particular part is attributed to him in the FIR. Not only that, Manjit Singh and Balwinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, were stated to have been granted the concession of regular bail by means of orders dated 03.01.2014 & 12.03.2014(Annexures P-2 & P-3) by the Additional Sessions Judge. In that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.
5. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The final 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, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Rani Seema 2014.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-24325 of 2014 3 Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. July 30, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh