JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 85, dated 12.09.2023, under Sections 379-B(2), 341, 336, 411, 201, 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shekhwan, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

2. Facts

Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

'Statement of Kawaljit Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh R/o House No. 177 Loharka Road, Gali No.9 NRI Colony, Amritsar aged 49 years. M. No. 98884-30028. Stated that I am resident of aforementioned address and is doing work of Fashion Designer at Amritsar. My in-laws are residing in village Talwandi Jangla. My father in law name is Sucha Singh son of Mohan Singh. Today I along with my wife Sarabjit Kaur aged 40 years went to meet my in-law's family at village Talwandi Jangla on Bullet Motorcycle No. PB-02-DV-4128 colour black. After meeting them at around 07:00 PM I along with my wife left for our house and at around 07:20 PM when we reach Qullian on Qadian to Batala road then one motorcycle came from back on which three boys were sitting. Two were clean shaved and one was in turban. They park their motorcycle in front of my motorcycle and stopped us. The boys told us that we should give them motorcycle and when I refused then one Hindu clean shaved person took our pistol and fired three shots in air to make us afraid. They took away my bullet motorcycle colour back No. PB02-DV-4128. I informed police by calling at 100 number and you have come at the spot.'

3. Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the motorcycle used in the commissioning of offence, stands recovered from Sukhchain Singh, who has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2024 passed in CRM-M-37626-2024.

On behalf of the State

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in multiple cases, therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the fact that the motorcycle in question was recovered from co-accused namely Sukhchain Singh, who has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 23.09.2024 passed in CRM- M-37626-2024 and the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 9 months and 28 days, as is evident from the perusal of the custody certificate added with the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 28.03.2024, charges stands framed on 22.04.2024 and out of total 12 prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far, meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail right of the petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during inve