Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 863 (PNJ)

Lal Singh v. State of Punjab

2024-05-15

ALOK JAIN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mr. Alok Jain, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No.21 dated 07.03.2024 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC registered at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-1). 2. Status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, has been filed by learned state counsel on behalf of respondent-State along with the Annexures in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations against the petitioner is that while applying for change of address on his Aadhar card the documents were verified by one Renu Mehta and the stamp used for verifying the same was of Sarpanch, whereas the correct position is that she was the Ex-Sarpanch of the village. 4. However, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is not only a simplicitor case of using a wrong stamp but fake stamps have been used and forged signatures have been made to create fake voter IDs in the village in order to meddle with the electoral roll and the election process as the petitioner does not even reside in the said village and more so, the main accused Renu Mehta is still on the run, therefore, the concession of regular bail must not be granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that, in fact, it is not a simplicitor case of misusing the stamp of the Sarpanch. As per the statement of Renu Mehta, Ex-Sarpanch, what transpired is that during the investigation she admitted to have signed on the form for change of address on the Aadhaar card but never stamped the said form. He submits that the petitioner does not reside in the said village and his submission that he resides in that village is on the basis of a fabricated electricity bill. 6. He submits that the petitioner does not reside in the said village and his submission that he resides in that village is on the basis of a fabricated electricity bill. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner and his family specifically owns a parcel of land in the said village, which is in the Lal Lakir and hence, an affidavit dated 28.07.2022 of the seller in favour of the present petitioner demonstrating that he is a resident of the said village cannot be denied. 7. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the charges have yet not been framed and the investigation is at the preliminary stage. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and considered the entire material on record coupled with the fact that the entire evidence is documentary in nature and the authorities already have the custody of the same. The petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2024 i.e. for more than 02 months and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall, however, be released on the following conditions : * The petitioner shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him. * The petitioner will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence. * The petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned. * The Petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. * The Petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. However, in case, the petitioner does not possess a passport, then he shall file an undertaking to the said effect before being released. 10. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 11. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of conditions of bail. 12. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.