Surinder Singh @ Shinda v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-10045 of 2022 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10045 of 2022 Date of Decision: 09.03.2022 Surinder Singh @ Shinda ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Mr.Arshvir Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab.

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.4 dated 31.01.2022 under Sections 323,341,452,506,34 IPC registered at P.S Sadar Morinda, District Rupnagar.

FIR was registered on the complaint of Satwinder Singh, who alleged that on 30.01.2022 at around 6.30 p.m, he was playing with his six months' daughter at home. Meanwhile, three persons, who came on a motorcycle, entered his house. One of them namely Surinder Singh @ Chinda (petitioner) was armed with a sword while rest of them were carrying Dat and Rod respectively. Petitioner is alleged to have given a sword blow which hit in the middle of head of complainant. The person accompanying him inflicted daat blow, which hit on the forehead of complainant and other person inflicted a blow with iron rod on shoulder of the complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have snatched the daughter of the complainant and thrown her aside as a result of which she received injuries on left side of her temporal region. Then the complainant fell down. All the accused are alleged to have caused injuries to him while he was lying on the floor. When the complainant managed to escape from the MANOJ KUMAR 2022.03.11 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-10045 of 2022 #2# assailants, he was followed and even beaten up. On noise being raised, the assailants fled the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that all the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency.

On the other hand, learned State counsel though has not disputed that the injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature but one injury suffered by him on his eye is kept under observation and referred for getting opinion.

Allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices, who were armed with swords, daat and rod, entered the house of the complainant and attacked him. They snatched minor daughter from his lap and thrown her aside. She also sustained injuries. They were having the knowledge that injury caused by them will cause grievous injury on vital part of victims. Even if the injuries are simple but the fact that the incident had taken place in the house of the complainant and the daughter was snatched from the lap of the complainant and thrown aside do not entitle him to get the benefit.

Taking into account the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used and severity of the blow and the part of the body where the injury is inflicted, this court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

March 09, 2022 (Harinder Singh Sidhu) manoj Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2022.03.11 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document