← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10882/2020dismissed

Raj Klumar @ Raju @ Raj Hans v. State Of Punjab

2020-08-20Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan2 pages

CRM-M-10882-2020 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10882-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.08.2020 Raj Kumar @ Raju @ Raj Hans

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:

Mr. J.S.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing in the light of the pandemic COVID-19 situation and as per instructions. This is second petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 61 dated 05.05.2018, registered under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural). It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that a compromise has been effected amongst the parties. Learned counsel has circulated through email undated affidavits of Bhupinder Singh (Sarpanch) and Paramjit Singh (Lambardar) wherein it is asserted petitioner Raj Kumar has agreed to pay `1,25,000/- as first instalment to the first party. JYOTI 2020.08.24 04:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-10882-2020 -2Learned counsel for the complainant states that there is no such compromise.

Heard.

The undated affidavits of the Sarpanch and Lambardar circulated today cannot be said to be proof of compromise between the petitioner and the complainant and by no means redress the grievance of the complainant. Otherwise also, this is second bail application filed by the petitioner. The first bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide detailed order dated 30.10.2018 passed in CRM-M-34082-2018, wherein the compromise between the parties already stands doubted. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to accept the prayer.

Dismissed.

However, nothing noticed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 20.08.2020 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Jyoti-II JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No JYOTI 2020.08.24 04:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document