Crl. Misc. No. M-4278 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-4278 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 17, 2010 Ranjit Singh @ Titi .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ranjit Singh @ Titi has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.72 dated 23.07.2007, under Sections 307, 382, 353, 332, 186, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and Sections 25 of the Arms Act (Sections 212, 216, 333 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner was earlier on bail, but after commitment of the case to Sessions Court, the petitioner did not appear in the Sessions Court on 27.06.2008 and rather one Ravi Sher Singh impersonated for the petitioner in the Sessions Court, but the impersonation was detected. The Crl. Misc. No. M-4278 of 2010 2 petitioner thereafter remained absent from the trial court and ultimately surrendered on 04.07.2009 – the date for which proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) had been issued against the petitioner for declaring him Proclaimed Offender. Since then, the petitioner is in custody i.e. for more than eight months. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has suffered enough for his misconduct, having remained in custody now for more than eight months. It is also contended that compromise has been effected with the complainant, who has stated that the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. The complainant appeared in person in this Court in petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise and the complainant admitted the compromise. The complainant also stated in this Court on 09.02.2010 in the quashing petition that the petitioner was not involved in the case. These observations have been made in order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P-8). In view of the aforesaid, without commenting anything on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurdaspur. This bail order is without prejudice to proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. March 17, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE