High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 11 P&H CK 0002

Ravi vs State Of Ut Chandigarh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 48029 of 2018 (O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 269 words

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 286

dated 04.08.2018, under Sections 392 and 411 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station 36, Chandigrh.

Allegations against the petitioner is that he has snatched a mobile phone along with Adhar Card of the complainant.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has already been submitted before the Court of competent

jurisdiction and now the case is fixed for framing charges today. Further contended that trial will take long time and as such no useful purpose would

be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for UT Chandigarh, on instructions from ASI Kartar Singh, has opposed the bail application on the ground that

such incidents are increasing day by day and petition should be dismissed.

Heard both sides and perused the paper book.

Undisputedly, this is the only case pending against the petitioner and investigation is complete and the case is fixed for framing of the charges before

learned trial Court. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant concession of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition

is allowed and petitioner-Ravi is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial

Court / Duty Magistrate, concerned.

The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of case.