Vikas v. State Of Punjab

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-27713 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:16.8.2016 Vikas

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Bharat Julka, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.203 dated 14.11.2015 registered for the offences under Sections 382, 436, 427, 341, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and (Section 307 IPC which was added later on) at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record. Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.17 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-27713 of 2016 [2] Ist of all, as per the vernacular of the FIR, which has been placed on the record, the FIR is only for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 IPC and offence under Section 307 IPC has been added later on. Even the order dated 10.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the bail application of the petitioner shows that the FIR is only for the offences 307, 324 and 506 IPC, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this bail petition under so many sections which are not there in the FIR. Secondly, as per the allegations, the present petitioner was armed with a knife and he stabbed the complainant as well as his brother Akash Kumar. The injury on the person of Akash Kumar has been declared as dangerous to life.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and the fact that the petitioner is named in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to him, he is required for custodial interrogation, therefore, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail.

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

August 16, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.17 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh