Desraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 May, 2017

CRM-M-8605-2017 -1-

In the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.

CRM-M-8605-2017
Date of decision: 23.05.2017

Desraj Singh ….. Petitioner.

V/S

State of Punjab ….. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

Present: Mr.PBS Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the complainant.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL.J.(ORAL)

Through the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,

the petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 66 dated

24.09.2014, registered under Section 406 IPC, at Police Station Nandgarh,

District Bathinda.

Seeking regular bail of the petitioner, learned counsel submits

that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.09.2016; challan has already

been filed by the police; since none of the 22 witnesses cited by the

prosecution have been examined till date the trial is likely to take a long

time to conclude and that whether the petitioner had misappropriated the

paddy, as alleged, would be deciphered only during the course of trial.

Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground

that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of having

misappropriated paddy worth approximately `4 crores which was ultimately

to be infused in the public distribution system.

1 of 2
07-06-2017 13:50:34 :::
CRM-M-8605-2017 -2-

Since, the petitioner has already been in custody for over 8

months; the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future as 22 witnesses

cited by the prosecution still remain to be examined and whether the

READ  Jan Mohd vs State Of Haryana on 27 March, 2017

petitioner has misappropriated the paddy or not would be deciphered only

during the course of trial, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to

be admitted to regular bail.

Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Since the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated paddy

worth about `4 crores, the trial Court shall insist upon heavy local sureties.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be considered to be an

expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case.

If the petitioner, during the period he is on bail, is found in

indulging in any criminal activity, tampering of evidence or influencing of

witnesses etc., the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation

of bail granted to the petitioner by this Court.

23.05.2017 (DEEPAK SIBAL)
smriti JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
07-06-2017 13:50:35 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *