Kuldeep Singh @ Goru v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM- M- 13547 of 2020(O&M) Date of Decision: 19.02.2021 Kuldeep Singh @ Goru

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant.


Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral)
Case heard by video conferencing.

By this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'anticipatory bail', upon FIR no.63, dated 15.02.2020, having been registered at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC. On 23.06.2020, the following order had been passed:- 


  




  


 





 

 
!
"
#


 
$ % &'&'(
)

*
+))
* !(
++*(



* 

 


+)(
,(
*-*
"!(
.)(



 
 

 

)


/0
 





 ) !
 
 


  )
  !
  ! 1 
 )

 






2
 


))
 
 






*


!
 
 

 )




)(


) 
 



 

1 
* 
 )

)

 


 

CRM- M- 13547 of 2020(O&M) -2-



! !
)

 (





!
"
#


 1

3 3 &'&' 4 Thereafter, on 07.07.2020, the following order had been passed:- -))

) 

  

 !




   !
 




5 !
 



 

6

 (

 
 

 

7

 
)7(

/0
 %8(
 $ '& &'&'(
 !
 ! 
!

 

  (
))! !
 
 

 
  )

*
8'&

 
*
8#


+

.
6 (
) 
 )


 (
 
 





! 



)
 


  
 
 
 
*


!
9
*    
 )
))


)

7
 (
 !








1 
*  )

 
 
 


))



  
 
 !
 
7 
 

7


 







 )
)


(
 :



)
 
 )
) 
 






 
 )
 
 




 
 :



)

 

 

 



 
)

2
 
 
 
 
* 38


 + 






 


:



 


 



 



 (

 )


 :



 )





2 !
 



(
 
 !(




 

CRM- M- 13547 of 2020(O&M) -3-


 

 ))

;
  !
 




 

)
 (
 

 !
 



 
 


)
 


(

 

 
 )
;  ! (



 ! 

 (

 )

)

)(


  !
:


)
 
  
 


 


 !
<):
.!  (
))

5
 

 !


 2
))(
 (
 

))

  
  ) 

* #8=
>&?


 + 


 !



; 
 
  ! (

 )



) 
):
.!   )(

 )

  
 !

 




;


  ! -; 
& '3 &'&' 4 Eventually, the statement allegedly made by the co-accused, Sunny Dogar, has been produced before this court in a sealed cover in the form of zimni recordings by the police, dated 17.02.2020 and 23.02.2020, wherein undoubtedly there seems to be some contradiction as regards the role of the petitioner in the first alleged statement and the second alleged statement, but be that as it may, the petitioner is shown to be one of the two persons who inflicted injuries on the deceased. (Though the first statement was to the effect that the petitioners' role was of banging the head of the deceased against the floor in a Shamshan Ghat, in the other statement he was stated to have inflicted a knife wound.

Either which way, it is not a case where the petitioner has been attributed only a slap by the co-accused, as contended by learned counsel for

CRM- M- 13547 of 2020(O&M) -4-
the petitioner.

Whether or not such statements would be eventually admissible in evidence, is not being gone into by this court, in view of the fact that this is a petition seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, I do not think this a fit case where the petitioner can be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the order granting him interim bail is vacated, with the present petition dismissed.

If the petitioner is arrested and files any petition under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., such petition would be decided wholly on its own merits.

19.02.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:

No