Allowed

Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2014CRM-M/43631/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Subhash Chander, convicted of multiple offences including cheating and forgery. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year without charges being framed. The Court held that despite the gravity of the allegations, a reasonable time should be allowed for the trial to conclude and ordered his release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bonds in the sum of `5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

Subhash Chander Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-43631-2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-43631-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2014

Subhash Chander

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent.

¶13

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Subhash Chander, son of Baijnath Mandal, resident of House No. 39, Near Government Senior Secondary School, Nichi Mangli, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 471, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 86, dated 30.7.2013, registered at Police Station, Phagwara City, District Kapurthala.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that few co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by the Courts; all the offences for which the petitioner has been booked are triable by the learned Magistrate; the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case; and that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than one year since he is behind

¶16

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶17

CRM-M-43631-2013 (O&M) 2

¶18

the bars from 15.8.2013. He further contends that though the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has been presented, yet the charges have not been framed since one of the co-accused of the petitioner is absconding.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that few of the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by the Courts, however, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the premise that one of the co-accused of the petitioner, who was granted bail, is not appearing before the learned Court below, therefore, non-bailable warrants have been issued for securing his presence. He further contends that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been presented before the learned Court below, therefore, the trial would now proceed and the prosecution would make hectic efforts to produce the witnesses at the earliest.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶21

Concededly, the petitioner is behind the bars for last more than one year; after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate; the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case; and that all the offences for which the petitioner has been booked are

¶22

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

¶23

CRM-M-43631-2013 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Though the allegations against the petitioner are of grave nature, yet the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in a case triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than one year. The charges have still not been framed. The trial would take sufficient time to conclude.

¶26

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner, Subhash Chander, son of Baijnath Mandal, resident of House No. 39, Near Government Senior Secondary School, Nichi Mangli, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial of the present case, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

¶27

August 26, 2014 Pkapoor

¶28

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶29

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2014.08.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy of this order.

Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhbir Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Paramjit Kaur and Ors.

Mansa Ram Vs Vipin Pal @ Bittu and Others

Parkash Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Smt. Guro and Others Vs Sh. Raj Kumar and Others

Mahipal @Chottu Vs State of Haryana