The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a dacoity case involving armed robbery, acknowledging prolonged detention without charged framing, though noting pending cases and prior acquittal in dacoity charges.
Petitioner released on bail with bonds satisfactory to the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CRM-M-30445 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30445 of 2017 Date of Decision: 01.12.2017
Maninder @ Manminder @ Mani
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been made for grant of regular bail to petitioner Maninder @ Manminder @ Mani in a case arising from FIR No.74 dated 19.07.2012 registered under Section 392 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act (challan produced under Sections 395, 307 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act) at Police Station City-II, Abohar, District Fazilka.
According to the prosecution, petitioner along with his four accomplices having pistols robbed Innova car and mobile phone by firing two shots in the air and putting the pistol on the ear of the complainant and his companion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that two coaccused of the petitioner have already been granted bail in the year 2012. Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2013 i.e. for more than 04 years and 08 months. Yet the charge has not been framed against the petitioner. The Ravinder Singh 2017.12.02 12:38 conclusion of trial shall take a long time. No useful purpose would be I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
served by detaining the petitioner in jail.
-2-
CRM-M-30445 of 2017
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner submitting that three more cases are pending against the petitioner i.e two under Section 307 IPC and one under Section 353 IPC. That apart, petitioner was booked in two cases of dacoity, but has been acquitted for technical reasons by giving the benefit of doubt.
Considering over-all facts and circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Consequently, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case in future, this order shall stand automatically cancelled and he would be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial.
(RAMENDRA JAIN) December 01, 2017 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Ravinder Singh 2017.12.02 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under Sections 392 IPC and the Arms Act after prolonged custody without framing of charges.
Whether the plea of non-framing of charges and pendency of other cases warrants release on bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Maninder @ Manminder @ Mani
State of Punjab
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
