CRM-M-25634-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25634-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:22.09.2011. Gulzar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sourav Khurana, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This is a petition for grant of bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.241 dated 19.07.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 405, 120-B of IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2011, whereas the challan has been presented on 21.09.2011 i.e. after the expiry of 63 days. Learned State Counsel, on instructions received from ASI Tarsem Singh, concedes the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Som Nath v. State of Punjab, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 515 (P&H) to contend that the petitioner deserves concession of bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] because the challan has not been presented within the statutory period of 60 days as provided under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by this Court in view of the fact that the challan CRM-M-25634-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: has been presented during the pendency of his bail application before this Court, after expiry of the statutory period of 60 days. It is also submitted that maximum sentence under Section 467 of IPC can be extended up to 10 years, whereas Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. would apply to a case where the sentence is not less than 10 years. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the decision of this Court in Som Nath's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In view thereof, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. September 22, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge