Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Shaminder Arora and another - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-5247-2021, CRM-M-4506-2021, CRM-M-5266-2021
Decided On : 16-03-2021
Bail - Abduction - Compromise - Investigation Complete
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of abduction and related offenses. The accused were alleged to have forcefully taken the victim to the police station but left him due to rush in the market.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioners, considering that the investigation was complete, the trial was likely to take time, and the petitioners had no previous criminal antecedents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted bail despite the allegations of abduction and other serious offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the completion of the investigation, the likelihood of a prolonged trial, and the lack of previous criminal antecedents in granting bail to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The petitions for bail were allowed, and the petitioners were granted bail on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. These three petitions bearing CRM-M-5247-2021, CRM-M- 4506-2021 and CRM-M-5266 of 2021 are filed seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 395, dated 25.12.2020, under Sections 363, 365, 506, 120-B, 452, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.
3. The FIR was at the behest of Shivam Sarin stating that on 25.12.2020 a car bearing registration No. PB-01-B-4062 with a board on its front of Bhartiya Samaj Sewa Sanstha, stopped in front of his shop named as Raja Electrical. The accused five in numbers alighted the car, after entering the shop inquired about Yuvraj Chadda. The accused were carrying grievance against wife of Yuvraj Chadda who had made a complaint against them at Raja Sansi with regard to domestic violence. They caught hold of Yuvraj Chadda for taking him to police station for getting an FIR registered.
4. The allegations are that the accused forcefully took the petitioners in the car but the car stopped due to rush in the market, they left the place leaving Yuvraj Chadda there only.
5. The contention on behalf of the petitioners are that the matter between Harpreet Kaur and Yuvraj Chadda is being settled by way of compromise. The submission is that Balbir Singh and Bhupinder were running NGO for resolving the dispute between the parties. Reliance is placed upon the custody period to submit that the investigation is complete and challan stands presented.
6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. The argument is that there was partially successful attempt to abduct Yujraj Chadda.
7. The petitioners are in custody since 25.12.2020; investigation is complete; conclusion of trial is likely to take time and petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, the petitioners are granted bail on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitions are allowed.
8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
