CRM No. M-6282 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-6282 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.3.2011 Baj Singh alias Baja ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. M.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking regular bail in case FIR No.70 dated 7.9.2008 under Sections 307/411/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act and Sections 21/29/61/85 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Amritsar. This Court on 11.3.2011 has passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 6.4.2010, however, no challan has been submitted by the police against the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, petitioner is in illegal confinement. Notice of motion. On being asked Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Investigating Officer shall file his personal affidavit specifically stating therein whether challan is submitted against the petitioner in the present case and if no CRM No. M-6282 of 2011 (O&M) -2- challan has been submitted against the petitioner as yet, on what basis judicial remand is being granted against the petitioner. List on 17.3.2011. Copy of this Court be given to learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, under the signatures of Bench Secretary.” This Court on 17.3.2011 has passed the order as under: - “Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on the instructions of H.C. Dilbag Singh, Investigating Officer states that it is not clear as to whether challan was submitted against the petitioner in the present case or not. He further states that since Investigating Officer has been transferred so clear facts could not be placed before this Court. Let SHO concerned remain present in person before this Court on 21.3.2011, alongwith case diary of the present case. SHO concerned shall file affidavit before this Ocurt as to whether in the present case challan was submitted against the petitioner, if yes, when? List on 21.3.2011.” SHO Darshan Singh is personally present before this Court. SHO as well as Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, state that they are not in a position to make statement as to whether in the present case any challan has been submitted in the Court against the accused or not. Accused is in judicial custody w.e.f. 6.4.2009. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, no challan has ever been filed against the petitioner in the present case. However, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and SHO are not definite as to whether challan is filed against the petitioner or not. In view of this, statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner stands unrebutted. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001)5 CRM No. M-6282 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Supreme Court Cases 453 has ruled that if no challan is submitted within the statutory period, accused has legal right to be enlarged on bail. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct let petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Amritsar, under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (Alok Singh) Judge March 21, 2011 R.S.