Avtar Singh Alias Ghugh Alias Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2025CRM-M/1351/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.; prolonged incarceration owing to slow trial progress (only 08 of 12 prosecution witnesses examined); FIR No.310 dated 31.10.2022, P.S. Civil Lines, Batala; snatching of service revolver and purse containing Rs.2000/-; S.379-B IPC with Ss.411 & 201 IPC and S.25 Arms Act, 1959 added later; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu; bail bonds and surety bonds; State's liberty to seek recall of bail on misuse; custody since 01.11.2022; charges framed 15.03.2023.

What did the court decide?

Admission to bail pending trial on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶(10)

Avtar Singh Alias Ghugh Alias Amarjit Singh Vs… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Admission to bail pending trial on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶(10)

Issue for consideration

Whether bail pending trial should be granted to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., who is in custody since 01.11.2022 with charges framed on 15.03.2023 and only 08 of 12 prosecution witnesses examined. +1 more

¶(1)

Court's answer

With the petitioner in custody since 01.11.2022, challan presented, charges framed on 15.03.2023 and only 08 of 12 prosecution witnesses examined, there is no justification to prolong his incarceration any further.

¶(9)

Ratio / Principle

Present petition allowed; petitioner admitted to bail pending trial on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶(10)

Key takeaways

Petitioner shall fully co-operate with the learned trial Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.obiter¶(11)
The above observations are not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶(12)
In case of any misuse of the concession of bail by the petitioner, the State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending trial under S.439 Cr.P.C. granted: The Punjab & Haryana High Court (Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.) allowed the third regular-bail petition of Avtar Singh @ Ghugh @ Amarjit Singh, in custody since 01.11.2022 in FIR No.310 dated 31.10.2022 (P.S. Civil Lines, Batala, Distt. Batala) under S.379-B IPC (with Ss.411 & 201 IPC and S.25 Arms Act, 1959 added later). With the challan presented, charges framed on 15.03.2023 and only 08 of 12 prosecution witnesses examined, the Court held there was no justification to prolong incarceration and admitted the petitioner to bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate, subject to directions that he co-operate with the trial without unnecessary adjournments, that the observations not be read as an opinion on merits, and that the State may seek recall of the order on misuse of the bail concession. The State's objection founded on the petitioner's other criminal cases was met by counsel's submission that he stands acquitted in all such cases.

¶1

CRM-M-1351-2025 (O&M)

¶2

223

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.1351 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.05.2025

¶5

Avtar Singh @ Ghugh @ Amarjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶11

Present:Mr. Gagandeep Singh Simble, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S.Walia, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶14

Third petition has been filed under Section 439 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘Cr.P.C.’ ) for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.310 dated 31.10.2022, under Section 379-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short ‘IPC’ ) [Sections 411 & 201 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on], registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, District Batala.

¶15

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.17 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

-1-

¶17

CRM-M-1351-2025 (O&M)

¶18

(2) Custody Certificate dated 14.05.2025 of the petitioner has been produced and which is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the opposite side. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶19

(3) Allegations are that petitioner snatched service revolver; purse containing Rs.2000/- as well as other documents from de facto complainant’s pocket.

¶20

(4) Contends that petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2022; charges were framed on 15.03.2023; but out of total 12 prosecution witnesses, only 08 have been examined till date; thus, trial will take sufficient long time.

¶21

(5) The aforesaid factual position is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police official concerned; but he opposed the prayer on the premise that petitioner is facing various other criminal cases; hence, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

¶22

(6) While controverting the plea raised on behalf of the State, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner stands acquitted in all other criminal cases.

¶23

(7) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

¶24

book.

¶25

(8) It is not in dispute that petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2022; challan stands presented; charges were framed on 15.03.2023; but out of total 12 prosecution witnesses, only 08 have been examined till date; thus, trial will take sufficient long time.

¶26

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.17 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-2-

¶28

CRM-M-1351-2025 (O&M)

¶29

(9) In view of the above, there is no justification to prolong the incarceration of the petitioner any further.

¶30

(10) Consequently, present petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶31

(11) Petitioner shall fully co-operate with learned trial Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

¶32

(12) The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of case.

¶33

(13) It is clarified that in case there is any misuse of concession of bail on the part of the petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶35

15^th May, 2025

¶36

Gagan

¶37

( MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU ) JUDGE

¶38

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶39

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.17 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document