High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/33096/2018dismissed

Sandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-09-07Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih2 pages

CRM-M-33096 of 2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33096 of 2018 Date of Decision: 07.09.2018 Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Vishwajeet, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.63 dated 29.03.2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 458/323/341/506/148/149 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala.

Heard.

Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Kewal Singh submits that petitioner alongwith others had caused injuries on the person of complainant and his brother, namely, Sanjeev after entering their house by breaking the door. Injuries on the person of complainant were kept under observations and opinion is yet to be taken. The petitioner has also created a cross-version case, which on investigation was found to be false and cancellation report of the same has been prepared. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover weapon of offence. JITENDER KUMAR 2018.09.07 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other two co-

CRM-M-33096 of 2018 -2accused, namely, Mandeep Singh and Maghar Singh have been allowed anticipatory and regular bail respectively.

Perusal of FIR shows that petitioner has been attributed head injury on the person of complainant while allegations against Mandeep Singh and Maghar Singh are that they had caught hold the complainant. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is main accused, who had caused injuries on the head of complainant with iron rod, I find no reason to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to him. Dismissed.

September 07, 2018 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JITENDER KUMAR 2018.09.07 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh