RAM CHAND GUPTA - (1.) THIS order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. CRM No.M-6714 of 2012 2 54 dated 18.02.2012, under Sections 392/411/34 IPC, registered at police station Sector 31, Chandigarh.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are students of 10+2 and that they are to be given vocational training. It is further contended that they have been continuing in custody since 23.03.2012. It is further contended that the offence was committed by some other unknown persons and that the names of present petitioners have not been mentioned in the FIR. It is further contended that they have been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that petitioner-Rahul talked to petitioner-Manoj Kumar as they are friends on the alleged stolen mobile, which was handed over to petitioner-Rahul by a seller in the market of Ram Darbar, Phase-II, Chandigarh just to test the mobile and he dialed the number of Manoj Kumar and had a talk with him. It is further submitted that no identification parade was conducted and that rather complainant had given an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh that present petitioners were not the same persons who had committed robbery and who had taken away his mobile and cash from him. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State. However, he has also stated that petitioners have been involved in this case on account of the fact that they had talked with each CRM No.M-6714 of 2012 3 other on the stolen mobile of complainant. He is not in a position to deny the assertion of learned counsel for the petitioners that an application has been given by the complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh that present petitioners are not the same persons who had snatched his mobile and cash and that no identification parade has been conducted. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the petitions for regular bail filed on behalf of Rahul and Manoj Kumar are allowed.
(3.) BAIL to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.;