Sanjeev Salwan @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Monu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-10116 of 2017 (O&M) Sanjeev Salwan alias Sanjiv Kumar alias Monu

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-10788 of 2017 (O&M) Sudhir Salwan

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Date of Decision: April 21, 2017

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.K.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.08 dated 26.02.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 379, 341, 506 and 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, District Gurdaspur. Vineet Gulati 2017.04.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-10116 of 2017 and connected petition -2Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that it is a case of version and crossversion. Both the petitioners have also received injuries in the occurrence. It is to be decided by the trial Court, on the basis of evidence, as to who was the aggressor party. Petitioner Sanjeev Salwan is stated to be armed with kassi whereas petitioner Sudhir Salwan is stated to be armed with datar. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in CRM No.M-10116 of 2017 and order dated 30.03.2017 passed in CRM No.M-10788 of 2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.

April 21, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.04.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh