Tarsem Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-12995 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:3.8.2017 Tarsem Singh and others

...Petitioners

v.

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.53 dated 19.3.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 307, 379-B, 279, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, District Jalandhar. Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this 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 as per the prosecution version Tarsem Singh was armed with a `Datar' and gave simple injury on the head Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.04 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-12995 of 2017 [2] of Manni Hans. Kulwinder Singh is stated to have given the stone blow on the head of Manni Hans-injured, which injury has been declared dangerous to life. Ravinder Singh alias Laddo was stated to be armed with a baseball and has given the injury on the head, which has been declared simple. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioners have been attributed specific injuries and these injuries were given at about 10.20 p.m. when Fortuner car of the accused hit the car of the complainant and then these injuries were caused by the present petitioners to the injured.

In view the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offences, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

August 3, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.04 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh