Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh @ Nimma vs State Of Punjab on 11 August, 2017
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
Crl. Misc. M-20926-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M-20926 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 11, 2017
Nirmal Singh @ Nimma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Akashdeep Sethi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhaypal Singh Gill, AAG Punjab.
********
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.92 dated 12.08.2016, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 511, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 18 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Bahavwala, District Fazilka.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein was taken into custody in the aforesaid FIR on 17.08.2016. It is submitted that there are several discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix wherein, she has stated that the petitioner herein did not commit any type of offence against her. It is also contended that statement of all the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2017 22:16:26 ::: Crl. Misc. M-20926-2017 -2- witnesses have been recorded including the prosecutrix and her brother and only one witness is to be examined, therefore, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, opposes the bail application, while submitting that statement of prosecutrix and her brother have already been recorded and only one witness remains to be examined.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since, the trial is likely to take some time and in view of the facts that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, he is not required for any further investigation and statement of prosecutrix and her brother have been recorded, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the custody. Therefore, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
August 11, 2017 JUDGE
vijay saini
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2017 22:16:27 :::