Atul Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Th i s is the first petition filed unde r Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail t o the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.171 dated 09.09.2024 under Sections 3 07, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (Secti o n 317(2) BNS added later on) registered at P o lice Station Focal Point, Di s trict Police Commissionerate (Annexure P-1) .

¶17

Br i ef facts of the present case are that complainant Om Parkash Kumar stated t h at on 07.09.2024 at about 6: 3 0 PM, when he reached few distance behind his factory, two persons came on Black Activa and stopped near him and a l ighted therefrom, out of them, one person was clean shaven having fair co m plexion and was armed with ir o n rod. They both were calling each other by n a me of Rahul and Atul (petition e r herein). Petitioner-Atul gave

¶18

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶19

CRM-M-17584-2025 (O & M)

¶20

2

¶21

rod blow on th e neck of the complainant and second person namely Rahul snatched his m o bile phone Mark Oppo, Golde n Colour, Model 838 from his pocket, wallet o f black colour, containing note s of Rs.5,000/-, his Adhar Card bearing No.96 2 938180504 and other docum e nts from left pocket of his trouser. Therea f ter, both the accused gave fist blows to the complainant and threatened to ki l l him and fled away from the s p ot. Hence, the FIR ( supra ) was registered.

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r , inter alia , contends that the petitioner has b e en falsely implicated by twisti n g the facts and the allegations have been mani p ulated to aggravate the offence , only to make it a non-bailable offence. She fu r ther contends that the case set u p by the prosecution is highly improbable. Sh e submits that the petitioner is n ot involved in any other case and is having c lean antecedents and the cas e is triable by the Magistrate. Further, the in v estigating agency has alread y concluded the investigation. Furthermore, th e recovery memos prepared by t he investigating officer do not bear the signat u res of the petitioner, as such, it h as no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Th e petitioner is behind the bars si n ce 13.09.2024. 4. Le a rned State counsel produces t he custody certificate of the petitioner, whic h is taken on record and per co n tra, opposes the prayer of the petitioner on th e ground that the complicity of t he petitioner is duly proved on record and he i s not entitled to any relief ke e ping in view the serious and specific allegati o ns levelled against him. Howe v er, he could not controvert the fact that the pet i tioner is not involved in any ot h er case.

¶23

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶24

CRM-M-17584-2025 (O & M)

¶25

3

¶26

A t wo Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with r espect to prevailing conditions of undertrial pri s oner in India has observed:

¶27

“ 6. Jails in India are floode d with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us w ould indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of th e prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category o f prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arr e sted despite registration of a cognizable offence, being ch a rged with offences punishable for seven years or less. T hey are not only poor and illiterate but also would in c lude women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it c e rtainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, o n the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding th e fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtail m ent of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo c racy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

¶28

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of t h e case, it transpires that the pe t itioner is behind the bar since 13.09.2024. In v estigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was pr e sented before the concerned C ourt. The culpability, if any, would be deter m ined at the time of trial. No us e ful purpose shall be served by further detentio n of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention witho u t the prospect of the trial bein g concluded in the near future, would be violat i ve of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above, the pres e nt petition is allowed. Thus, without comm e nting upon the merits of the c ase, lest it may prejudice the

¶29

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶30

CRM-M-17584-2025 (O & M) 4

¶31

outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Atul Shar m a is ordered to be released on regular bail du r ing the pendency of the trial o n furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the sat i sfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Tr i al Court. 8. No t hing observed hereinabove sha l l be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case an d the trial Court shall proceed without being p r ejudiced by observations of thi s Court.

¶32

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

April 04, 2025 manisha

¶34

MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Atul Sharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Sharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkamal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Heera Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harbhajan Lal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab