Allowed

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sanju v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2024CRM-M/19032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC in a cheating and forgery case where he was in custody since arrest. The court observed that although he faced other charges, he was on bail therein, investigation was complete, and trial would be lengthy. Consequently, the petition was allowed to release him on regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety, undertaking to appear regularly, not leaving the country, and not tampering with evidence.

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sanju Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-19032-2024 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

228

¶5

CRM-M-19032-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 04.11.2024

¶6

SUKHWINDER SINGH @ SANJU

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

¶12

Present : Mr. Sanjeet Taank, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ankit Grewal, DAG Punjab.

¶14

¶15

SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)

¶16

1 . Short reply dated 21.08.2024 filed in the form of an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar, is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

2 . Arguments heard.

¶18

3 . The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following

¶19

case :-

¶20

FIR No.	Dated	Sections	Police Station
98	31.08.2023	379-B(2) and 34 IPC	Majitha Road, Amritsar

¶21

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

¶22

that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He

¶23

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.11.05 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

CRM-M-19032-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶25

submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2023 and after the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in the Court, and as such, he is not required for further investigation. Thus, prayed for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the short reply submitted by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that three other cases of similar nature are also registered against the petitioner, as such, he is a habitual offender and the snatched vehicle was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

¶27

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the instant FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered by the complainant on account of his Activa scooter bearing No.PB02-DX-2973 being snatched on the fateful day. Subsequently, the petitioner was nominated in the case and was later on arrested and the Activa scooter of the complainant was allegedly recovered from his house. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2023. Although there are 3 more cases registered against him, but he is stated to be on bail therein. Challan has already been presented in Court and the criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.

¶28

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on

¶29

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.11.05 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶30

CRM-M-19032-2024 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner.

¶33

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶34

9 . Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

¶36

04.11.2024

¶37

S.Sharma(syr)

¶38

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶39

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.11.05 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sanju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sanju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Rani (Sood) Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harish Mendiratta Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Another

Yuvraj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gopal Dass Vs Baldev Raj & Ors.