Blog

The petitioner was convicted under section 147IPC, “Punishment for rioting.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine, or with both.” section 148 IPC, “Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon here stones or with anything which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine, or with both.” section 149 IPC, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense commit­ted in the prosecution of the common object.”

section 307 IPC, “Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or fine”, section 341IPC, “ Punishment for wrongful restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment or with fine, or with both.”

An  FIR No.127 was filed on the 17^th of July 2020 registered at the police station at Chandigarh and therefore the petitioner was seeking regular bail under 439 Cr.P.C., “Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.” This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal on the 23^rd of July 2021 in the case of Rohan versus union territory Chandigarh CRM-M-27359-2021. Mr. Rakesh Gupta represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Punchhi as the public prosecutor for the union territory of Chandigarh. The proceedings of the court were held through video conference due to the covid-19 pandemic.  

The following are the facts of the case, a group of people injured the complainant by attacking him with stones, two accused are specifically named however according to the counsel of the petitioner he contends that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner was arrested on 27^th June 2020 and has been behind bars for over a year.

The counsel representing the union territory of Chandigarh held that even though there is a custody certificate proving the petitioner was in custody for one year and 1 month and five days. As they are following instructions from the high authority they claimed that no prosecution witness has yet to be examined and therefore objects the appeal for bail, he stated before the high court that the petitioner has been previously involved in other cases and he doesn’t deserve the concession of regular bail.  

The court held that since the petitioner has been held in custody for over a year and due to the coronavirus pandemic, the proceedings of the trial will take some time and therefore the high court decided to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

The high court concluded that “Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.”

Click here to read the judgment