Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Jatinder Pal Singh @ Sunny, the petitioner in CRM-M- 11839-2020, was shown as the named accused in the FIR along with eight unknown accused. Thereafter, the police included the names of the other accused persons and one amongst them was Vishal, the petitioner in CRM-M-778-2020. Jatinder Pal Singh was arrested on 22.07.2018 while Vishal was arrested on 05.09.2018. By way of the present petitions, both of them seek regular bail.

These bail petitions were filed by Vishal and Jatinder Pal Singh on 08.01.2020 and 18.03.2020 respectively. On 04.02.2020, during the hearing of CRM-M-778-2020 filed by Vishal, Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of Gagandeep Singh, the complainant. The learned State counsel was directed to file a detailed reply, giving the stage of the trial, along with a copy of the challan and the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation. The reply filed by the State along with supporting material was taken on record on 16.03.2020. CRM-M-11839-2020, the bail petition filed by Jatinder Pal Singh, could not be taken up for hearing due to intervention of the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequential lockdown in March, 2020. Thereupon, he filed an application in CRM-10544-2020 seeking interim 2 of 33 bail pending disposal of the main bail petition. This interim bail application was taken up for hearing on 15.05.2020 and it was adjourned to 28.05.2020 with the direction that the main case should also be fixed for hearing on that date. The State counsel was asked to seek instructions in the matter so that the case could be taken up for final disposal on that date. On 28.05.2020, this Court opined that the statement of Neelam Kaur, who was stated to be unrelated to the victim's family and was cited as a prosecution witness, would be material for deciding the bail petition. As the next date for the prosecution's evidence before the trial Court was fixed on 02.07.2020, this Court directed the matter to be listed for consideration on 06.07.2020 along with the connected CRM-M-778-2020, the bail petition filed by Vishal. The trial Court was directed to record the deposition of Neelam Kaur on the date fixed and the prosecution was asked to ensure her attendance on that date. On 06.07.2020, Neelam Kaur's two statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and her deposition before the trial Court on 2nd and 3rd July, 2020, were taken on record. This Court noticed that a site plan was sought to be relied upon by the petitioners but as the same was not an authenticated document, it was opined that the same could not be treated as automatically admissible in evidence. Thereupon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought time to come up with an authentic/admissible site map. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 17.07.2020. On that day, an authenticated map was sought to be placed on record by way of an application but as Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, learned counsel, stated that he had not been furnished the same copy that was placed before the Court, the matter was 3 of 33 adjourned to enable service of an identical copy of the site map upon the learned counsel. On 27.07.2020, this Court found that no reply had been filed by the complainant though he had filed an implead application and accordingly adjourned the matter to enable him to do so. The reply of the complainant was thereafter filed along with supporting documents. Arguments were then heard at length and in consequence, the cases are amenable to final disposal at this stage.