IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5079 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 18, 2011 Satnam Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is a petition seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 1, dated 01.01.2004, under Sections 307, 323, 447, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Amargarh, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2010, however, challan Crl. Misc. No.M-5079 of 2011 was not preferred within 90 days as required by Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel further states that since bail application of the petitioner was filed before this Court on 16.02.2011 and was listed for the first time before this Court on 17.02.2011, therefore, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 453. Learned counsel further states that even otherwise petitioner was not aware about the registration of the criminal case against him and matter was compromised between the other accused and the complainant and petitioner was never summoned by the police under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and was wrongly declared proclaimed offender. Learned counsel further states that petitioner has earlier challenged the order declaring proclaimed offender, however, petition was dismissed as withdrawn and petitioner was arrested thereafter on 17.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that trial shall take some time and in every likelihood there is no chance to conclude the trial at the earliest, therefore, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 381, petitioner is otherwise entitled for bail. 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-5079 of 2011 Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of ASI Jaspal Singh, has very fairly stated that no challan was submitted against the petitioner within 90 days from the date of his custody and was ultimately submitted on 01.04.2011. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Let, petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. April 18, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3