Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1308 (PNJ)

Harnek Singh v. State of Haryana

2005-12-20

S.S.SARON

body2005
JUDGMENT S.S. SARON, J. 1. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) has been filed for grant of bail pending trial. 2. The petitioner along with others committed a bank robbery at the Ambala Kurukshetra Gramin Bank, Kangthali. Two customers, namely, Gulzar Singh and Vikram were preset at the bank when two clean shaven boys aged 25-26 years entered the bank one by one through the main door of the bank. Both the boys were carrying country made pistols. One of them aimed the pistol at the ear of the complainant Ram Mehar, Field Officer of the bank and the other put the pistol on the ear of Balbir Singh, Manager of the bank. They were made to stand with their hands up. Meanwhile two Sardar boys, who were their companions, entered the bank one by one. They brought the Manager Balbir Singh, Joginder Singh (Messenger) and the complainant near the strong room and got it opened. They directed them to stand in the strong room. The earlier application for grant of bail was dismissed on 20.8.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per allegations in the FIR four persons are alleged to have committed the bank robbery, however, five persons have been arrested. Besides, it is contended that charge in the case was framed on 18.7.2005 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 14.10.2005 for evidence. However, no evidence was recorded and the case now adjourned to 20.2.2006. It is further contended that the petitioners have been in custody since 8.1.2004. 4. In response, learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioners have committed a serious crime and indulged in bank robbery. In case they are granted the concession of bail, they are likely to abscond. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It may appropriately be noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed application for bail which was declined on 20.8.2004. Thereafter charge has been framed and the case is now fixed for evidence on 20.2.2006. It may also appropriately be noticed that Sukhwinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner filed Criminal Misc No.5619-M of 2005 for the grant of bail. The same has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2005. Thereafter charge has been framed and the case is now fixed for evidence on 20.2.2006. It may also appropriately be noticed that Sukhwinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner filed Criminal Misc No.5619-M of 2005 for the grant of bail. The same has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2005. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that case is now fixed for evidence on 20.2.2006, it would be inappropriate to extend the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed. However, prosecution shall ensure that the witnesses are present on the date fixed for evidence i.e. 20.2.2006 and the learned trial Court shall also take effective steps to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.