SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 370

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Rajan Dass – Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Ut Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-5868-2025
Decided on : 15-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shubham, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., UT, Chandigarh.

The court recognized that continued pre-trial incarceration without sufficient justification may constitute an injustice to the appellant, thereby granting bail under specified conditions.

Headnote:The petitioner, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sought bail after being incarcerated relating to multiple FIRs. The Court, recognizing the potential for further injustice against the petitioner, finds no justification for continued pre-trial custody and ultimately grants bail. The petitioner is to comply with specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearing in court on required dates.

Table of Content
1. bail application under specific statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on the necessity and implications of bail. (Para 4 , 5)
3. reasoning behind granting bail based on evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7)
4. conditions and implications of the granted bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

467

19.12.2023

Sector-36, Chandigarh

420, 467, 468, 471 IPC

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, [ BNSS ], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date

Offenses

Police Station

1

422

15.11.2023

419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

Sector 36

2

07

12.01.2024

419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

Sector 36

3

124/2019

-

419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

Ambala City

4

221/2014

-

419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC

Ambala City

5

131/2021

-

420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

Fatehgarh Sahib

6

104

31.08.2016

419, 420, 468, 471 IPC

Fatehgarh Sahib

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows:-

'Respected SHO Sir, it is requested that a Court Order CNR No: CHCH020039082023, CIS No: EXE/593/2023 in Case KRISHNA DEVI VS VINOD MANOCHA etc issued by the court of Sh. Puneet Mohinia, Civil Judge Jr. Division, Chandigarh, UID No. PB00497 to registered case under U/S 420 IPC and Other relevant Sections against Gurinder Singh S/o Raghveer Singh R/o Village- Balyali, Tehsil. Mohali, Distt. SAS Nagar, PB. Age-25 Years, from the above mentioned Court of Naib Court, was received at Police Station stated as CNR No.CHCH020039082023, CIS No: EXE/593/2023. KRISHNA DEVI VS VINOD MANOCHA etc. Present: Sh. Yogesh Mittal, Advocate, Counsel DH. Sh. Vikram Singh Vohra, Advocate Counsel for the Jds. Today, the present execution was fixed for awaiting report of Tehsildar as well as Halqa Patwari. However, Halqa Patwari Sh, Sukhpal Singh has appeared and suffered statement that he is posted as Halqa Patwari of village Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali in the month of November, 2023 and he was only Patwari, who could have made a revenue report regarding the land situated in the revenue estate of village Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali in the month of November, 2023. He further stated that he has seen the Copy of Jamabandi of the Year 2017 produced in this case, as per which, Sh. Gurinder Singh Son of Sh. Raghubir Singh Son of Sh. Sucha Singh is the owner to the extent of 61/1944 share i.e 21/2 sarsahi i.e. less than half marla land, out of total 9 marla land falls in khewat no. 144 Khatoni No.146 situated in village Ballall Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali. He further stated that he has not scribed the word 18 marla/10 marla on the jamabandi produced in the case and he has also seen the application for issuance of market value verification dated 24.11.2023 in the court file in which he has never given any report as Halqa Patwari of Village Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohall. He further stated that the alleged report Mark A1 does not of his handwriting and it does not bears his signatures and there is no such type of stamp in the name of Halqa Patwari Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali as affixed on the report was/is ever available with the said Halqa Patwari of Village Baliali Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali. Meaning thereby the surety which was furnished in the present Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 after the order of Ld. Appellate Court, seems to be filed on the basis of false forged documents and this fact is required to be investigated by the police authorities. As such, copy of all the documents be sent to the concerned SHO/In-charge of jurisdictional police station along with copy of this order for registering FIR against the surety under Section 420 other relevant Sections under the provisions of IPC. As the Court has proceeded on the exhaustive report/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top