Ravi v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-13814 of 2015 Date of Decision: 30.4.2015 Ravi ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Darshan Singh.

Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Darshan Singh, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") for seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 100 dated 23.7.2014, registered under Sections 326, 324 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.

2.

As per the prosecution allegations, the petitioner and his coaccused Sukha had caused injuries to Sanjay alias Binder, the servant of the complainant.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the statement of the injured, only allegation against the petitioner is that he caught hold of him. Learned counsel further contended that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation. Thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 4.

I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2015.05.01 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M-13814 of 2015 5.

As per the prosecution allegations, the injuries have been caused to Sanjay alias Binder on his face and neck and he was bleeding profusely. His mobile phone was also found missing. As per the written statement of the victim, in the presence of the doctor, he was caught hold of by the petitioner and the injuries were caused to him by Sukha with "Dattar". Total five injuries have been suffered by the victim. As per the statement of the victim, the petitioner has facilitated his co-accused to cause these serious injuries on his person. So, the petitioner has failed to make out the exceptional case to claim the extraordinary privilege of the anticipatory bail.

6.

In view of the circumstances, the present petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Darshan Singh) Judge April 30, 2015 "DK"

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2015.05.01 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document