Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 18 May, 2012

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 18 May, 2012

Bench: Ram Chand Gupta

CRM No.M-11182 of 2012                                                       -1-



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH.


                                     Crl. Misc. No. M-11182 of 2012 (O&M)

                                           Date of Decision: May 18, 2012.

Sudhir Kumar

                                              ..........PETITIONER(s).

                    VERSUS


State of Punjab
                                              ..........RESPONDENT(s).


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

Present:      Mr. Rajeev Kaswan, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Sumeet Abrol, A.A.G. Punjab,
              counsel for respondent-State.

              Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
              for PW Subhash.

                    *******

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.11 dated 28.01.2012 registered under Sections 380, 447, 427 read with Sections 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and offences under Sections 324, 384, 420, 467, 506 and 120-B of IPC were added later on, registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

CRM No.M-11182 of 2012 -2-

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 20.03.2012 and that he has been falsely implicated in this case as in fact, there is dispute between the two brothers namely Kashmir Chand and Jagdish Chand over a plot and the allegations are that common wall of both the brothers was demolished by co-accused Jagdish Chand, who is brother of complainant Kashmir Chand. It is further contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of alleged affidavit given by Subhash PW.

However, learned counsel appearing for PW Subhash stated that no such affidavit was given by him and that in fact he was forcibly made to sign the said affidavit in the police station. He has also stated that petitioner is having no role in this dispute between two brothers namely Jagdish Chand and Kashmir Chand.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application merely on the ground that petitioner has been implicated in this case on the affidavit of PW Subhash.

Case is triable by Magistrate, which is not likely to be concluded in near future as challan has not been filed so far.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Sudhir Kumar is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur. CRM No.M-11182 of 2012 -3-

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 18, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court