CRM-M-23481 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-23481 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.08.2011 Gurwinder Singh @ Mintu . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.244 dated 25.09.2007 under Sections 399, 401 & 402 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot though there was a police party comprising of six persons. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that five other co- accused, who have faced the trial, have already been acquitted by the trial Court on 18.4.2011 observing that simply if there were five persons sitting together would not make out a case under Section 399 or 402 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been produced on production warrant being involved in another case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in custody since 15.6.2011 and no useful purpose shall be served by detaining him in custody especially when the other co-accused have already been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18.4.2011. CRM-M-23481 of 2011 - 2 - Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that there are some other cases registered against the petitioner but it is pointed out that none of the case is under Section 399/402 of the IPC or even of robbery or dacoity. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on merits, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court who is entitled to impose any other condition to ensure the presence of the petitioner. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 19, 2011 JUDGE Vivek