Saurav @ Bagga v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M nos.18797 and 20383 of 2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202/2 CRM-M-18797 of 2021 Date of Decision:13.01.2022 Saurav @ Bagga ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......... Respondent CRM-M-20383 of 2021 Mukesh Kumar @ Manpreet Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the petitioners.
***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via Vide these petitions, the petitioners seek the concession of 'anticipatory bail' under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.25, dated 19.04.2021, having been registered at Police Station Pojewal, District SBS Nagar, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC.
DINESH 2022.01.21 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M nos.18797 and 20383 of 2021 -2The petitioners having been admitted to interim bail vide orders passed by this court on 13.05.2021 and 25.05.2021, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have joined investigation and admittedly both the injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the complainant being simple injuries, the only cognizable offence would be one punishable under Section 452 of the IPC.
Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that as per the affidavit filed by the DSP, the petitioners not having disclosed the names of their companions, their custodial interrogation is very much required. Looking at the nature of the allegations and the fact that there is a doubt as to actually who was the the aggressor party, with learned counsel submitting that the whole occurrence has actually been concocted as there is a delay of 48 hours in lodging the FIR,
! ! !
!
!
January 13, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No DINESH 2022.01.21 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document