High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4268/2019dismissed

Dalbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2019-01-30Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain2 pages

-1CRM-M-4268 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4268 of 2019 Date of Decision: 30.01.2019 Dalbir Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. I.S. Pabla, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR no.520 dated 03.11.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 506, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act have been deleted) at Police Station Butana, District Karnal.

According to the prosecution, in the day time of 01.11.2018, complainant was caused various injuries on his entire body, including grievous one by Chinka alias Ankit, Manni and 5-7 more persons hired by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that impugned FIR is a counter-blast to the earlier one got lodged by the petitioner against the complainant for causing him injuries. Petitioner has falsely been implicated. No injury is attributed to the petitioner. Story putRAVINDER SINGH 2019.02.01 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document forth of hiring contract killers by petitioner to commit murder of the

-2CRM-M-4268 of 2019 complainant is completely concocted and false. In fact, petitioner is real uncle of the complainant. Civil litigation qua joint property amongst them is pending since long in Courts. It is unbelievable that complainant was knowing prior in point of time, before causing him injuries, that persons who had caused injuries to him, were hired by the petitioner. Heard.

Considering seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required inasmuch as co-accused namely Chinka alias Ankit and Manni, after their arrest during investigation, in their disclosure statement, disclosed to the investigating officer about their hiring by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) January 30, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.02.01 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document