Jagdeep Singh @ Jagdish Singh @ Deep v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-6874 of 2021 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6874 of 2021 Date of decision:15.03.2021 Jagdeep singh @ Jagdish Singh @ Deep ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the complainant.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.71 dated 23.06.2020 registered under Sections 341, 324, 323, 325, 326, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S.Dorangla, District Gurdaspur. As per the version of the prosecution, the FIR was registered on the complaint of Amritpal Singh on the allegation that on 22.06.2020, he was coming back on a motorcycle with his wife after attending the marriage of a relation when he was waylaid by a group of 15-16 people who without SAVITA KADIAN 2021.03.16 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-6874 of 2021 {2} any provocation caused injuries on his person and his wife. I have heard counsel for the parties.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was a member of the unlawful assembly, most of the members of which were armed and they attacked the complainant causing four injuries on his person. Three injuries have been found to be blunt and the fourth injury, which was caused by the petitioner by a datar on the calf of the right leg of the complainant, has been declared to be grievous in nature attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC.

Considering the fact that the injury attributed to the petitioner is grievous and he alongwith other accused attacked the complainant without any reason, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Still further, vide interim order dated 15.02.2021, considering the role of the petitioner, this Court has declined to admit him to interim bail.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is ordered to be dismissed.

It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE March 15, 2021 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2021.03.16 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh