Crl.Misc.No.M-24572 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.9.2010 Lakhvir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of bail and lost in the Court of Session, the petitioner Lakhvir Singh son of Lal Singh has directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith other co-accused, namely, Harvinder Singh, Hans Raj and Sukhwinder Kaur, vide FIR No.19 dated 16.2.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the instant case. 4. According to the prosecution, the present petitioner alongwith his other co-accused has stolen the cheques from the cheque book of complainant Surjeet Kaur and mis-appropriated the amount. The learned State counsel has pointed out, on the instructions of ASI Amrik Singh, that Harvinder Singh, Hans Raj and Sukhvinder Kaur co-accused of the present petitioner, were found Crl.Misc.No.M-24572 of 2010 2 innocent during the course of investigation. It means, the story of the complainant qua them was found to be false, which creates doubt in its entirety of the prosecution case. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that all the offences, alleged against the petitioner, are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner was arrested on 22.7.2010. Since then, he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required for further detention for any purpose. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. Moreover, the basic rule is bail and not jail in such like cases. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. 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 regular bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/or in his absence, Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. 8. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. 16.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge