CRM-M No.651 IN THE 251 Rajesh Kumar @ State of Punjab CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. *** MANJARI NEH 1. The the Bharatiya Na under Sections Prevention of Co Sections 338, 340 2. Lear been in custody s of the petitioner which an arms li contended that t interrogation of Magistrate, Patia had been forged forged arms lice o.65175 of 2024 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CRM-M N Date of De mar @ Lobhi @ Rohit Sharma Versus HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJ Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** I NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concess iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in case tions 61 (2), 336, 340, 318 of BN of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended 38, 340 (2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Learned counsel for the petitioner stody since 30.08.2024. No suspicion tioner in forging of signatures of the D rms licence was issued in favour of on that the petitioner came to be nomi on of co-accused Parveen Kumar, C , Patiala, who claimed that signature forged by him after conspiring with s licence had been issued to Lovepre NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH M No.65175 of 2024 e of Decision:13.01.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondent MANJARI NEHRU KAUL oncession of bail under Section 483 of in case FIR No.214 dated 28.08.2024 BNS, 2023 and Section 7 of the ended by Act of 2018 (later on added red at Police Station Tripuri, Patiala. tioner submits that the petitioner has picion was raised qua the involvemen f the District Magistrate, subsequent to r of one Lovepreet Singh. It has been nominated as an accused during the mar, Clerk in the office of Distric natures of District Magistrate, Patiala with the petitioner and thereafter, a ovepreet Singh in lieu of Rs.10,000/ 483 of 8.2024 of the added tiala. er has ement uent to s been ng the istrict Patiala fter, a 0,000/- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.13 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.651 illegal gratificatio case of the prose part of the cha concerned. It h 07.01.2025 and t none out of the 2 further been sub disclosure statem accused has littl 3. Per submissions mad has been in custo and he was nom suffered by co- has submitted tha co-accused had i during investigat co-accused in the 4. I hav placed on record. 5. The allegations in the to be a conspir gratification was that as it may, in o.65175 of 2024 -2- ification. Learned counsel for the peti e prosecution is based on documenta e challan, which already stands pr . It has also been submitted that and therefore, the trial is unlikely to f the 25 prosecution witnesses cited, n submitted that in the aforesaid cir statement on the basis of which the pe le evidentiary value, the petitioner Per contra, learned State counsel s made by the counsel opposite, has custody since 30.08.2024, challan qu s nominated as an accused on the -accused Parveen Kumar. Howev ted that after forging signatures of the had issued an arms licence in the na estigation, it surfaced that the petition in the commission of alleged offence. I have heard learned counsel for the record. The petitioner has been in custody in the FIR in question against the peti onspirator to the crime and even n was not made by him but by the c ay, in the facts and circumstances as he petitioner further submits that entire mentary evidence, which is already a presented before the trial Cour that charges have been framed on kely to conclude in the near future, as cited, have yet been examined. It has aid circumstances, more so, when the the petitioner has been arraigned as an titioner deserves to be enlarged on bail unsel while opposing the prayer and has not disputed that the petitioner llan qua the petitioner stands presented n the basis of a disclosure statement owever, learned counsel for the State of the District Magistrate, Patiala, the the name of one Lovepreet Singh and petitioner had conspired with the sa ffence. for the parties and perused the materia stody since 30.08.2024. There are no he petitioner. The petitioner is alleged even the alleged demand of illega the co-accused Parveen Kumar. Be ces as enumerated hereinabove, since t entire eady a Court ed on ure, as It has en the d as an ail. er and titioner sented tement e State la, the gh and e said aterial are no alleged illegal ar. Be since PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.13 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.651 all the incriminat challan, there ca evidence, hence, 6. Acc admitted to bail o Court/Duty Mag observed hereina the merits of the 7. Nee granted to him, th January 13, 202 Pankaj* o.65175 of 2024 -3- iminating material collected against th ere can be no apprehension of the ence, this Court deems it fit to admit t Accordingly, the instant petition bail on his furnishing bail/surety bon Magistrate concerned. However, i ereinabove shall not be construed to of the case. Needless to add, in case the petitione him, the State would be at liberty to se , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable inst the petitioner is already part of the of the petitioner tampering with the dmit the petitioner to bail. tition is allowed. The petitioner be ty bonds to the satisfaction of the Tria ver, it is made clear that anything ed to be an expression of opinion on etitioner misuses the concession of bai y to seek cancellation of the same. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No t of the ith the ner be e Trial ything ion on of bail AUL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.13 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh