Amarjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

 

  
        
   CRMM70702024 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.04.2025 Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

 

  


 

   !"!#$ Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.



 % 

& '

1.

The present petition has been filed under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed by this Court in CRMM 32532024 arising out of FIR No.175 dated 08.07.2022 under Sections 308/325/323/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station PS Jandiala, District Amritsar, for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2. 2.

The respondent No.2, Dalbir Singh was granted regular bail in FIR(supra) vide order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P1), passed by the coordinate bench of this Court. However, FIR No.175 dated 08.07.2022 under Sections 308/325/323/506/34 of IPC was registered by petitioner at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, alleging that the respondent No.2 and other accused named in FIR(supra) attacked and suffered injuries to the petitioner and his father. Thereafter, present application is moved by petitioner seeking

 cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent no.2, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.01.2024.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has suffered two injuries out of which injury no.1 which is lacerated wound on the head inflicted by Dalbir Singh(Respondent no.2) with spade which has been declared dangerous to life by medical board. The Radio diagnosis report of injury no.1 suffered by petitioner shows fracture of the right parietal, frontal and left parietal bone. The MLR of petitioner along with other medical record is annexed as Annexure P3. Thereafter, in the aforesaid FIR offence under section 308 of IPC has been added by investigation agency vide report dated 07.11.2023, and these facts have not been brought to the knowledge of this Court while granting regular bail to respondent no.2 vide order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P1). Further, respondent no.

2 had filed the first regular bail application before this Court which was listed on 07.12.2023 and learned counsel of petitioner appeared on that day and after he pointed out the injuries suffered by complainant/petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 01.03.2024.Thereafter, respondent no.2 withdrew his first bail and filed the second bail application which was listed on 29.01.2024 and was allowed on the same day. The present petitioner/complainant under the impression that the regular bail application of respondent no.2 is pending for 01.03.2024, could not check the cause list and therefore could not appear on 29.01.2024 to oppose the bail. Further, in the para no. 3 of order dated 29.01.2024, it was contended that grievous injury has been attributed to respondent No.

2 and the fact that this injury had been declared dangerous to life by Medical Officer and there is fracture of right parietal, frontal and left parietal bone of the petitioner, was not disclosed. Respondent no.

( to the petitioner and his family members and he is pressurizing them to enter into compromise in the present case.

4.

   learned State counsel contended that there is no apprehension of any threat given by the accusedprivate respondents or that they have tried to tamper with any evidence in any manner or that the complainant had ever submitted any representation before senior police officials or the investigating officer in that regard or that there was danger of accused absconding or fleeing from justice or that they have misused the concession of

. The investigation stands completed, upon which the final report under Section 173 
  has been presented in the trial  against respondent no.2 and two other accused, and the case is now fixed for framing of charge. Learned counsel for the accusedprivate respondent no.2 has stated that the orders granting

have rightly been passed and no findings on merits of the case have been given and are mere observations to decide the application. The  has also specifically mentioned that the same shall be not taken to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case. The accused has neither misused the concession of

in any manner nor has threatened the complainant or influenced the witnesses or hampered the investigation and there has not even been any such allegation or complaint submitted by the complainantpetitioner. The accusedrespondent has no criminal antecedents. Further, it is a case of version and crossversion. 5.

The parameters for denying bail and cancelling the same are quite varied. Denial of bail is a matter of discretion and can be decided upon without inspecting the details of the matter. If the Court is of the opinion that the accused is likely to misuse the liberty granted to him, it can deny bail simply on the basis of gravity of the offence. However, cancellation would amount to

 curtailment of the liberty already granted to an under trial accused, which cannot be embarked upon in a cursory fashion. Only if a grave error is highlighted in the order granted bail or it is evident that the accused is misusing the concession, can the Court consider cancellation. 6.

The scope and power of the judicial review of an order granting bail has been illustrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in




    , as follows:            

      

                      

  



      



   

 





                

      !

7.

A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in



    !



   

"#""$, speaking through Justice Krishna Murari, observed as follows: ""#    

 

  

                 $    

       

          %

  

 

  

    

& ""'(    

        

  

  

 





   

 "")  (        

       

      

    

          

  """(        





   

 ""*(

    

 

) ""+(        



     "",(  

      

      

       

      ""-  (        

    

    .

       

 !

8.

It is apparent that there is a matter of version and cross version between two parties. The veracity of the prosecution case against accused/respondent no.2 and coaccused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial. The challan having been presented and the case now is fixed for framing of charges, require no interference. In wake of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order of grant of bail to the accusedrespondent no.2, Dalbir Singh coupled with no supervening facts being present. 9.

Applying the law as enunciated to the facts and circumstances of the case, this  finds that no ground is made out for allowing the present petition. As such, the same is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merits. 10.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

&

 '

 )  ) / Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No