KAMAL JEET SAINI Vs. UT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the allegations against the petitioners are that they had forged the documents for obtaining loans for purchase of 24 scooters in all. These scooters are stated to have been further sold. Learned counsel, however, contend that all the 24 scooters have been recovered and out of them 14 scooters have been released to the dealership namely Bedi Suzuki Auto on 'superdari' and payment of 10 of them has also been made. They have been referred to the documents at Annexure P-

(2.) with CRM-M-52046-2018 and Annexure P-2 with CRM-M-8909-2019 wherein it is mentioned that payment of only 14 scooters is outstanding. It is further contended that the petitioners are in custody for over a year and are not involved in any other case, except petitioner-Sandeep Singh in CRM-M-52046- 2018. The petitioner Sandeep Singh is also involved in another case under FIR No.33 dated 05.04.2018 registered at Police Station, Phase-11, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, which pertains to 2 scooters out of the afore-noted 24 scooters and he has been granted regular bail by the trial Court. They also contend that the petition bearing CRM-M-8909-2019 would also be maintainable even though the application of the petitioner for the grant of bail under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C . had been dismissed by the trial Court. The revision petition preferred there against was also dismissed by the Sessions Court on 08.02.2019. The case was fixed for evidence at the first instance before the trial Court on 05.11.2018. In somewhat similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 291 had held the petition preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to be maintainable. 2 out of 50 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime. The case against the petitioners is based on documentary evidence which is already in the custody of the investigating officer and is part of the challan filed before the trial Court. All the offences are triable by the Magistrate. 2. Learned State counsel, however, contends that the allegations against the petitioners are rather serious in nature as they are alleged to have forged the documents while obtaining loans for the purchase of scooters. The payment pertaining to only 10 scooters has been made while payment of 14 scooters is outstanding. These scooters had been further sold by the accused. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the scooters have been recovered. He also submits that there are 34 prosecution witnesses and not 50 prosecution witnesses as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners and 2 of them have been examined and efforts are being made to expedite the trial. He has also raised objection to the maintainability of the petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Heard. In the case of Sukhdev Singh versus State of Punjab (supra) the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was held to be maintainable although application had been preferred before the trial Court under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and revision there against was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

(3.) Therefore, in view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners especially when all the 24 scooters are stated to have been recovered, the petitioners are in custody for over a year and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.