In CRM-M-47562-2022 (O & M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC grants regular bail to man in case of robbery of 150 Processors considering his eight-month-long custody along with other factors
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi [16-02-2022]

Read Order: Ramjan @ Lala v. State of Haryana

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, February 20, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case of robbery of 150 pcs Processors considering his eight-month-long custody along with other factors. 

The prayer in this petition before the Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered under Sections 34, 365 and 379-B IPC later amended to Sections 365, 392, 394, 419, 476, 120-B and 34 IPC. 

Essentially, while the complainant was having a meeting with an interested buyer to sell 150 PCS Processors, they were attacked by a group of three who eventually stole their phones and processors. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the accused (including the petitioner) were arrested and at their instance, recovery of various RAM devices were made. The petitioner got recovered 03 RAM devices. 

The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, rather, he was named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused Jaswinder Singh @ Balwinder. In fact, the Counsel added that his arrest was shown from Alwar without informing the Rajasthan Police, therefore, this inter-State arrest of the petitioner was illegal in terms of the Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

It was also the Counsel's case that the co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of bail and thus, the petitioner was entitled to the similar relief. Even otherwise, the Counsel argued that as none of the 20 prosecution witnesses were examined so far and the petitioner was a first-time offender, his further incarceration was not required.

The Court observed that the petitioner was in custody since June 26, 2022 and none of the 20 prosecution witnesses were examined so far. The Bench added that there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner will either abscond, tamper with the evidence or influence any witness, if he was granted the concession of bail. 

Therefore, the Court added that the case was covered by the ratio of judgement passed by this Court wherein it was stated that broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts), in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates, once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied, then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule.

Even otherwise, it was noted that the co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this Court. 

In view of the aforementioned facts and also the fact that the investigation was already completed, the Court held that the further incarceration of the petitioner was not required. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court/Duty Magistrate.