← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12388/2020allowed

Fateh Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-07-14Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 1.

FATEH SINGH .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent 2.

LABH SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent Date of decision: 14.7.2020

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

(the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in Virtual Court) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. The petitioners Fateh Singh and Labh Singh seek grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.28 dated 14.2.2020 under Sections 452, 323, 427, 34 IPC at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga.

2. The FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of Pritam Kaur wherein it has been alleged that on 9.2.2020 when she along with her

(2) daughter-in-law Soni Kaur was present in her house, then Labh Singh who resides in the neighbourhood hit at their door with the help of 'Kahi' and damaged the door. Labh Singh, Fateh Singh, Zora Singh and Harpreet Kaur also trespassed into their house carrying brick-bats and pushed the complainant's daughter-in-law. When the complainant moved forward to rescue her daughter-in-law, then Fateh Singh gave blow with 'Danda' on the head of the complainant. Labh Singh is alleged to have given a blow with the 'Kahi' from its blunt side on the right arm of the complainant. Harpreet Kaur is stated to have given a blow with 'Sariya' on left arm of the complainant. Zora Singh gave fist blows to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant's daughter-in-law Soni Kaur as well as her son Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa were also given beatings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the present case and even if the allegations are taken to be correct still at best it is a case of inflicting simple injuries.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has stated that since the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and are attributed specific injuries, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It has however been informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court on 15.5.2020, the petitioners have since joined investigation.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and while bearing in mind that it is a case of simple injuries and that the petitioners

(3) have joined investigation as has been informed by learned State counsel, in my opinion, it is not a case which would warrant custodial interrogation. The petitions, as such, are accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 15.5.2020 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438

(2) Cr.P.C.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 14.7.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No