CRM-M 6015 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 6015 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.03.2011 Manish Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate, for the complainant. 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.205 dated 20.11.2009 under Sections 307/323/324/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. This Court on 28.2.2011 has passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite of several dates fixed by learned trial Court, prosecution witnesses Tarlochan and Gurmeet Ram have not been examined as yet. Learned counsel has further stated that on the ground of non-examination of Tarlochan and Gurmeet Ram this Court has enlarged Ravi Kumar and Viney Gill – co-accused on bail vide order dated 15.2.2011. Notice of motion for 28.3.2011. Learned trial Court be asked to submit the status report. CRM-M 6015 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Investigating Officer/SHO, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar shall file his personal affidavit specifically stating therein the reason for no examining Tarlochan and Gurmeet Ram.” Learned trial Court has submitted the status report. As per the report of trial court, on 24.5.2010 date fixed for the prosecution evidence, one PW, namely, Kirpal Singh, Reader to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, came present and stated that Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Jalandhar, has not given any sanction in the present case, therefore, Reader to Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, may be summoned. However, no other PW was present; and thereafter case was fixed on sever dates, however, none of the prosecution witness was present and case was adjourned from time to time for prosecution evidence. But the prosecution has not examined even a single witness. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-23601 of 2010 titled “Ravi Kumar @ Latta and another Vs. State of Punjab”, has granted bail to other co-accused, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Ravi Malhotra, states that neither complainant nor injured were ever summoned by the trial Court for the date fixed for their statements that is why they could not appear before the trial Court. Short affidavit of Harjinder Singh, SHO, P.S. Phillaur, handed over by Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, in the Court today is taken on record. Perusal of the affidavit of SHO also reveals that no CRM-M 6015 of 2011 (O&M) -3- prosecution witness was examined despite of several dates fixed. Explanation furnished by SHO that complainant and injured were served through their mother or brother, cannot be said to be justified reason for not examining prosecution witnesses. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 381 has observed that in the event of rejection of the bail application, time spent in the jail during the trial cannot be restored to the accused in the event of acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed. Let accused be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (Alok Singh) March 28, 2011 Judge R.S.