Chuhar Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1064146
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-18-2013
AppellantChuhar Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal misc. not m-12285 of 2013 date of decision:18. 09.2013 chuhar singh ...petitioner versus state of punjab ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present: mr.kulbhushan raheja, advocate, for the petitioner. ms.harsimrat rai, deputy advocate general, punjab, for the respondent-state. **** inderjit singh, j. petitioner chuhar singh has preferred the instant petition under section 437 (6) cr.p.c., for grant of regular bail in case fir no.108 dated 11.10.2011, registered at police station cantt ferozepur, district ferozepur, under sections 3 and 9 of official secrets act, 1923 and under section 120-b ipc. learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the trial before the chief judicial magistrate has not been concluded within 60 days from the firs.date of recording of evidence, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2011 and the trial has not been concluded so far. on the other hand, learned state counsel contested the bail application. malhotra mamta the perusal of the record shows that the fir against the 2013.09.19 15:46 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal misc. not m-12285 of 2013 -2- petitioner is under sections 3 and 9 of official secrets act and under section 120-b ipc. the allegations against the petitioner are that he is employed in mes ferozepur cantt. and he sent secret information of indian army, location of units, activities of the army and ammunition to isi pakistan through mobile and other sources which effect the sovereignty and integrity of india. in the present fir, learned trial court and the learned additional sessions judge, while dismissing the bail applications of the petitioner, have given the reasoning. learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in concluding the evidence, therefore, he be granted bail and the reasoning cannot be sustained. section 437 (6) cr.p.c.provides bail if the trial before the magistrate is not concluded within two months from the firs.date of evidence. there is also one exception if the magistrate otherwise directs for reason to be recorded in writing. the magistrate has given the reasons for not granting bail to the petitioner and dismissed the bail application in view of the allegations against the accused and the gravity of the offence regarding collecting of secret information of army etc.and sending it to pakistan. learned additional sessions judge, while passing the order, has also considered this aspect and observed that from the nature of the material recovered from the petitioner-accused and the witnesses required to be examined in conclusion of the trial in such short span of time is not possible. the learned additional sesions judge has also observed that the learned chief judicial magistrate has also given similar observations which are well related to the malhotra mamta 2013.09.19 15:46 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal misc. not m-12285 of 2013 -3- nature of the case. learned counsel for the petitioner cited 2009 (4) rcr (criminal) 974 smt kamlesh versus state of haryana and 2009 (3) rcr (criminal) 291 sukhdev singh versus state of punjab. i have gone through the aforesaid citations. these citations, having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case. so, from the averments in the fir and from the allegations against the petitioner-accused, i find that nature and gravity of the offence is also to be seen for releasing the petitioner on bail under section 437 (6) cr.p.c.and also whether the trial of such type of cases can be concluded within 60 days from the firs.date of evidence. therefore, the reasoning given by the chief judicial magistrate and the learned additional sessions judge cannot be held as not sustainable. therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. however, as the petitioner is in custody for such a long time, therefore, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest, preferably within three months by giving short dates and even adjourning the case on day to day basis. the trial court is also directed to send the status report to this court after three months. 18.09.2013 (inderjit singh) mamta judge malhotra mamta 2013.09.19 15:46 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.

not M-12285 of 2013 Date of decision:

18. 09.2013 Chuhar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner Chuhar Singh has preferred the instant petition under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.108 dated 11.10.2011, registered at Police Station Cantt Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, under Sections 3 and 9 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and under Section 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been concluded within 60 days from the fiRs.date of recording of evidence, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2011 and the trial has not been concluded so far.

On the other hand, learned State counsel contested the bail application.

Malhotra Mamta The perusal of the record shows that the FIR against the 2013.09.19 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

not M-12285 of 2013 -2- petitioner is under Sections 3 and 9 of Official Secrets Act and under Section 120-B IPC.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he is employed in MES Ferozepur Cantt.

and he sent secret information of Indian Army, location of units, activities of the Army and ammunition to ISI Pakistan through mobile and other sources which effect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

In the present FIR, learned trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the bail applications of the petitioner, have given the reasoning.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in concluding the evidence, therefore, he be granted bail and the reasoning cannot be sustained.

Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C.provides bail if the trial before the Magistrate is not concluded within two months from the fiRs.date of evidence.

There is also one exception if the Magistrate otherwise directs for reason to be recorded in writing.

The Magistrate has given the reasons for not granting bail to the petitioner and dismissed the bail application in view of the allegations against the accused and the gravity of the offence regarding collecting of secret information of Army etc.and sending it to Pakistan.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the order, has also considered this aspect and observed that from the nature of the material recovered from the petitioner-accused and the witnesses required to be examined in conclusion of the trial in such short span of time is not possible.

The learned Additional Sesions Judge has also observed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also given similar observations which are well related to the Malhotra Mamta 2013.09.19 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

not M-12285 of 2013 -3- nature of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 974 Smt Kamlesh versus State of Haryana and 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 291 Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab.

I have gone through the aforesaid citations.

These citations, having distinguished facts, will not apply in the present case.

So, from the averments in the FIR and from the allegations against the petitioner-accused, I find that nature and gravity of the offence is also to be seen for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C.and also whether the trial of such type of cases can be concluded within 60 days from the fiRs.date of evidence.

Therefore, the reasoning given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held as not sustainable.

Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

However, as the petitioner is in custody for such a long time, therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest, preferably within three months by giving short dates and even adjourning the case on day to day basis.

The trial Court is also directed to send the status report to this Court after three months.

18.09.2013 (INDERJIT SINGH) mamta JUDGE Malhotra Mamta 2013.09.19 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh