CRM No.M-30431 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.11.2010 Malkit Singh @ Kala son of Swaran Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Senior DAG Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC., petitioner Malkit Singh alias Kala son of Swaran Singh, has instituted the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, vide FIR No.87 dated 21.8.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 392 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner alongwith his other co-accused came to the house of complainant Reena Sehgal wife of Anil Kumar Sehgal on the pretext of collecting census information. The petitioner and his co-accused were stated to be armed with Datars, while the third was armed with a pistol. They forcibly snatched the gold chain and purse containing Rs.10,000/- in cash from the complainant. They raised alarm. Then, the accused slipped away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. CRM No.M-30431 of 2010 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with some amount of vehemence that Anil Kumar Sehgal, husband of the complainant, is running Sehgal Immigration and Educational Consultancy (Annexure P2) for sending persons to Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Cyprus, Ireland, Singapore, Dubai and UK. He promised the petitioner to send him abroad and received the payment of Rs.3,30,000/- from him and he withdrew the amount from his bank account to the tune of Rs.2,98,000/-, vide entry (Annexure P3). The husband of the complainant neither sent the petitioner abroad nor returned the money to him. He called him to his house in the garb of returning the amount. Instead of returning the money, they started beating him on account of demand of money from them and has been falsely implicated to put pressure upon the petitioner not to demand the amount and to take any legal against the complainant party. Thereafter, he was handed over to the police and was falsely implicated in the present case. In order to buttress his argument, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner, while in police custody, moved the application (Annexure P4) before the Magistrate for his medical examination and he was medico legally examined by the doctor, vide MLR (Annexure P4), who found four injuries on his person. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, supported by the documents (Annexures P2 to P4), the false implication of the petitioner cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage. 6. Be that as it may, the offence under section 392 IPC is triable by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner was arrested on 23.8.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served for further detaining him in jail. As even the charge has not been framed against the petitioner, therefore, the conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. Moreover, there is no history of CRM No.M-30431 of 2010 3 his previous involvement in any criminal case. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 9. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 10. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 10.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge