CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a third petition filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.11 dtd. 26/1/2022, under Ss. 307, 341, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 326 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot, Punjab.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year and 9 months and he has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. He further submitted that as per the allegations, the petitioner and the other co-accused have collectively caused injuries to the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioner was of giving fist blows and kick blows. He also submitted that the other co-accused, namely, Rohit Kumar @ Rohan, Saurav Saini and Deepak Sharma @ Deepu have already been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court vide Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively, and the petitioner is exactly at parity with the aforesaid co-accused. He further submitted that the trial of the case is not progressing in view of the fact that after the examination-in-chief of the complainant, an application was moved by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of additional accused and in this way, the trial could not progress with a result that the petitioner, who is otherwise having clean antecedents has suffered incarceration for more than 1 year and 9 month.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for 1 year, 9 months and 28 days. He submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has clean antecedents and it is also correct that he is at parity with the aforesaid co-accused, who have already been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court as aforesaid. He has however submitted that the petitioner was instrumental in causing injuries to the complainant and therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of regular bail.