Allowed¶15

Preet Alias Bawa v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2025CRM-M/35048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regular bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶15

Preet Alias Bawa Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, implicated in FIR No.105 dated 06.10.2023 (Sections 452, 307, 506, 148, 149, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Rangar Nangal, District Batala), in custody for more than 10 months with investigation concluded and charges not framed, deserves the concession of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.?

¶12

Court's answer

Given that investigation stands concluded with the filing of challan, charges have not been framed, the petitioner is in custody for more than 10 months, admittedly no firearm has been recovered from him, and he is not involved in any other case, the Court found no justification to extend his incarceration.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Admittedly, no firearm has been recovered from the petitioner and he is not involved in any other case.

¶15

Key takeaways

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous (CRM M-35048-2024 O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 04.02.2025 by Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral). First petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No.105 dated 06.10.2023, Police Station Rangar Nangal, District Batala, under Sections 452, 307, 506, 148, 149, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, alleging the petitioner entered the complainant's house with accomplices who fired upon him. Investigation concluded with filing of challan; charges not framed; petitioner in custody for more than 10 months; admittedly no firearm recovered from him; not involved in any other case. Court found no justification to extend incarceration and allowed the petition, ordering release on bail subject to adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, without expressing any opinion on merits; pending miscellaneous application(s) stood disposed of. State had opposed bail citing identification by complainant and recovery of motorcycle from the petitioner.

¶1

CRM M-35048-2024 (O&M) [1]

¶2

305

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM M-35048-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.02.2025

Preet @ Bawa

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶9

Present : Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Advoc a te for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, A A G, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

By way of present first p etition filed under Section 4 39 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made f o r grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR N o .105 dated 06.10.2023 un d er Sections 452, 307, 506, 148, 149, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the A r ms Act, registered at Police Station R angar Nangal, District Bat a la, whereby the petitioner has been i m plicated with the allegation of having e ntered the house of the complainant along with other accompl i ces who fired shot upon him. 2. Status report by way of a ffidavit of Sh.Harkrishan Singh, DSP, Sub Division, Sri Hargobindpur, Police District Batala along w ith custody c ertificate has been filed in C ourt today, the same are ta k en on recor d . Registry to tag the same a t appropriate place. 3. Learned counsel for th e petitioner submits that t he investig a tion is complete; but trial i s likely to take some time to conclud e as charges have not bee n framed till date and thus the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. 4. On the other hand, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed by learned State counsel w h ile

¶13

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.05 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶14

CRM M-35048-2024 (O&M) [2]

¶15

submitti n g that the petitioner was dul y identified by the complainant at the time of incident and even recov e ry of motor cycle was effected from hi m , thereby reflecting his activ e involvement in the occurre n ce and thus he does not deserve the co n cession of bail. 5. I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper book. I find substa n ce in the submissions made by learned c ounsel for the petitioner. 6. In the present case, investigation already sta n ds conclud e d with the filing of challan w h ereas so far even charges h a ve not bee n framed and as such the t r ial is likely to take some ti m e. The pet i tioner is in custody for the last more than 10 mon t hs. Admitte d ly, no fire arm has been recovered from the petitioner and he being n o t involved in any other case, in such circumstances, I do not find any j ustification to extend the inc a rceration of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, without expr e ssing any opinion on the m e rits of the c ase, the present petition i s allowed and the petitione r is ordered t o be released on bail, subje c t to his furnishing adequate b ail bonds/ s urety bonds to the satisf a ction of the concerned T rial Court/D u ty Magistrate. 8. Pending miscellaneous a pplication(s), if any, shall a lso stand di s posed of.

¶16

04.02.2 0 25 ( HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶17

Whether speaking/reason e d ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

¶18

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.02.05 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Preet Alias Bawa v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preet Alias Bawa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena Johar @ Meena Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kamaldeep Kaur Sandhu Vs Meharban Singh Pio Mtp

Gurwinder Singh Vs Shaukat Ahmed Pare IAS Dc Bathinda

Nacchattar Singh Vs Pankaj Kumar, Hcs Municipal Commissioner Kurukshetra

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Vikas Partap and Another

Lakhvir Kaur Vs Teg Singh and Anr.