Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15733 = 2020 L.A.R. (e-Suppl.) 2229
Decided on: 18.12.2020
Alongwith
CRM-M-30540-2020 (O&M), Amandeep Singh @ Amna v. State of Punjab
Present:
Mr. Santokhwinder S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-27015-2020.
Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-30540-2020.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.
(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching of mobile phone – Regular bail – Submission that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone – Petitioners remained behind bars for about 3 months – Challan already stands presented – Interim directions pertaining to grant of interim bail made absolute.
(Para 3-5)
***
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL) –
1. This order shall dispose off the aforesaid two petitions filed on behalf of Jagjeet Singh @ Jeeta and Amandeep Singh @ Amna seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.110 dated 13.07.2020 at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, under Section 379-B IPC (Section 411 IPC added later on).
2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Parkash Paswan, wherein it is alleged that on 13.07.2020 at about 2.00 PM, when he was proceeding on foot towards village Barewal and was present near Magnet Hotel, then two young persons on motorcycle came from behind and snatched his mobile phone and ran from the spot. It is alleged that later upon inquiry, he came to know that his phone was snatched by Amandeep Singh and Jagjeet Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the present case and that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the names of the petitioners specifically figures in the FIR, no case for grant of regular bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioners have remained behind bars for about 3 months and that challan already stands presented.
5. Having regard to the aforestated position, especially that the challan already presented, both the petitions are accepted and the interim directions dated 14.10.2020 pertaining to grant of interim bail are hereby made absolute. The trial Court shall, however, be at liberty to impose any fresh condition as deemed appropriate or to insist upon fresh bail bonds in case the same are required.
Petitions allowed.
********