High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35221/2017dismissed

Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2017-11-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj2 pages

CRM-M-35221 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35221 of 2017 Date of Decision: 13.11.2017 Harpreet Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

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

Present:

Mr. N.S. Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Zorawar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

******* 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.142 dated 19.06.2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 148, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. (Offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was added later on). Heard.

Learned State counsel submits that in the occurrence, petitioner has been attributed datar blow on left leg of complainant and this injury caused with sharp-edged weapon was declared as grievous in nature. In the cross-version case, Harjinder Singh @ Beeru son of Resham Singh has received injuries, which were found simple in nature and opinion in this regard was also given by private hospital, which is being verified by the police during investigation.

Jitender Kumar 2017.11.14 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-35221 of 2017 -2Learned counsel for complainant submits that the police has recorded the cross-version case but has not found the same as worth of reliance so far.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that injury on the person of complainant is not on vital part and investigating officer has yet to see as to which party was aggressor.

Petitioner is the main accused, who has been attributed grievous injuries to complainant on the leg.

Keeping in view the nature of injuries caused by petitioner and submission of learned State counsel that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered, I find no reason to exercise discretionary power of this Court to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner, at this stage. November 13, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Jitender Kumar 2017.11.14 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH