Ravi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :20.05.2026 Ravi ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.65 dated 03.04.2024, under Section 302, 307, 326, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala.

2.

The incident in question, took place around 01:00 AM on 03.04.2024, on the intervening night of 2-3 April, 2024 when complainant and his friend Tejpal (deceased in the present case) S/o Palaram were going towards Tejpal's house from Lakkar Mandi side on the motorcycles. On the way, accused Amandeep @ Jatt and his companion Ravi stopped Tejpal and started arguing with him. Complainant also got down from his motorcycle and joined them. Accused Amandeep @ Jatt gave a blow of dagger on the backside of head of Tejpal, who thereafter fell on the road. Describing the role of Ravi, it is alleged in FIR that he gave danda blows on the legs of

deceased Tejpal. When complainant tried to save his friend, Amandeep @ Jatt shouted to catch him and in the meantime, other co-accused namely Gola armed with Kirpan, gave a blow on the forehead above the left eye of complainant. Other accused namely Jaggu (brother-in-law of Amandeep @ Jatt) also gave beatings, while complainant was lying on the ground. 3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations, petitioner was armed with a danda and gave blows with it on the legs of deceased Tejpal. However, in the post-mortem report, no such injury is mentioned. Further, referring to the statement dated 10.04.2024 of Palaram (father of deceased), submits that as per the said statement, petitioner Ravi picked up a piece (jattu) of wood from nearby and caused injuries on the legs of complainant-Raghav Saraswat. In the same statement, it has also been explained that in fact earlier, there was a dispute with Tejpal and in that regard a criminal case was registered against deceased Tejpal. In the said criminal case petitioner Ravi, was cited as witness of incident. 4.

Thus, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as the ocular version in the FIR was not found corroborated in the post-mortem report and even allegation by the complainant in the FIR is quite different to the allegation in the statement of Palaram recorded on 10.04.2024. Thus, prays for grant of bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned DAG, Punjab submits that there are two cases registered against petitioner Ravi and against other accused also, there are several cases registered. Thus, all the accused being of criminal

nature need to be dealt strictly and considering the nature of allegation, none of them deserves the concessional release of bail. 6.

I have heard both the counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

7.

Injury which has been described in the post-mortem report of deceased Tejpal reads as under :- Sr. No. Injuries 1.

MULTIPLE LINEAR SUTURED WOUNDS, FIVE IN NUMBER, OF LENGTH VARYING FROM 11 CM TO 5.4 CM IS PRESENT HORIZONTALLY OVER LEFT SIDE OF HEAD AND BACK SIDE OF HEAD. ON DISSECTION, EXTRACRANIAL HEMOTOMA PRESENT OVER LEFT PARIETO OCCIPTAL REGION OF SCALP. FRACTURE OF LEFT PARIETAL BONE EXTENDING TO LEFT OCCIPITAL BONE PRESENT WITH INFILTRATION OF BLOOD IN SURROUNDING TISSUES. ON FURTHER DISSECTION AND REFLECTING THE MEMBRANES, SUBDURAL, SUBARCHNOID AND INTRAVENTRICULAR HEMORRHAGES PRESENT OVER LEFT PARIETO OCCIPITAL LOBES OF BRAIN. ABOUT 100 CC OF BLOOD PRESENT AT THE BASE OF SKULL.

2.

SULURED WOUND OF LENGTH 3.2.CM WITH ONE BLACK COLOR SUTURE MATERIAL IS PRESENT OBLIQUELY ON RIGHT SIDE OF FOREHEAD, BLACKENING OF EYES PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES. 3.

A BLACKISH BROWN ABRASION OF SIZE 4.2 CM x 1.7 CM IS PRESENT Y ON LEFT SIDE OF FACE, 2.1 CM FROM LEFT EAR TRAGUS AND 3.2 CM FROM LATERAL END OF LEFT EYE. ON DISSECTION OF INJURY NO.1 AND 2, EXTRACRANIAL HEMOTOMA PRESENT OVER RIGHT FRONTAL REGION OF SCALP. FRACTURE OF RIGHT FRONTAL AND ORBIT BNOES PRESENT WITH INFILTRATION OF BLOOD IN SURROUNDING TISSUES. ON FURTHER OPENING AND EXPLORATION OF CRANIAL CAVITY, EXTRADURAL HEMOΤΟΜΑ PRESENT CORRESPONDING TO THE INJURY DESCRIBED 8.

As per post-mortem report, the injury suffered by injuredcomplainant Raghav Saraswat in his MLR dated 03.04.2024 are also mentioned hereunder :- (i) Two incised wounds of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm each one present over right side of forehead 2 cm below anterior hairline and 2nd over left side of forehead 2 cm above left eyebrow.

Fresh bleeding and tenderness present. Advised-ray and surgeon opinion.

(ii) Right side of face found deformed with diffuse radish swelling present over right side of face around right eye, nose and right mandibular Region with reddish abraded contusion of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm present over right cheek with fresh bleeding and tenderness present over mouth and nostrils. Patient unable to open the mouth.

Advised x-ray eye, ENT and Dental Surgeon opinion. (iii) Two reddish contusion of size 6 cm x 4 cm present over front of right knee with reddish abrasions of size 4 cm x 1 cm present over front of right leg at its proximal part. Advised x-ray and Ortho observation.

(iv) Two reddish abrasions of size 3 cm x 2 cm present over front of left knee and 2 cm x 1 cm present over front of left leg at its distal part.

Advised x-ray and Ortho observation.

9.

Thus, prima facie, it appears that there is no injury suffered by deceased Tejpal on his legs, which was attributed to the petitioner. However, the copy of MLR dated 03.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) appended with the petition, it comes out that the injuries which have been described in the statement dated 10.04.2024 by witness Palaram on the legs of complainantRaghav Saraswat are there on his left and right knee, however same have been caused by the petitioner with danda or by any other weapon is not the issue, at this stage, before this Court, requiring its adjudication. 10.

Petitioner is inside jail since 08.04.2024 and considering the allegation in entirety that the trial is likely to conclude with considerable period. Out of 30 prosecution witnesses, till date, none has been examined (as informed by learned DAG, Punjab).

11.

Since involvement of the petitioner requires to be established beyond doubt, that too of sharing common intention to cause murder of Tejpal is a matter of trial.

12.

Considering the facts and observation made hereabove, at this stage, this Court does not find any inception to continue petitioner's detention by keeping him any longer inside the jail. 13.

In view of the aforementioned, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

14.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereinabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

15.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 20.05.2026 JUDGE Preeti S.

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No