Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15936
Decided on: 08.02.2021
Present:
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Beniwal, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395, 397, 216 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Absconded for 18 years – Especially when the petitioner is not named in the FIR while the co-accused was specifically named, he is in custody for about 06 months, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
(Para 4, 5)
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. Heard through video conferencing.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.71 dated 11.03.2000, under Sections 395, 397 and 216 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is alleged in the FIR that co-accused Kala was apprehended at the spot when he was trying to flee after scaling the wall of the school and it was found that one lady HMT watch and a torch were missing. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused. He was arrested in the case on 29.04.2000 and released on 26.07.2001. He further contends that the petitioner was under the impression that he has been discharged from the case and did not appear before the trial Court. He was arrested on 11.08.2020 and is in custody since then. He also contends that the petitioner is willing to furnish a local surety and he would not absent himself till the conclusion of the trial.
4. Learned State counsel states that the petitioner had absconded for over 18 years and was arrested thereafter.
5. In view of the above, especially when the petitioner is not named in the FIR while the co-accused was specifically named, he is in custody for about 06 months, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
7. The petitioner shall furnish an adequate surety including a local surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Petition allowed.
********