Ajay Kumar & ANR v. State Of Punjab

Crl. Misc. No. M-42156 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 201 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M- 42156 of 2016 Date of Decision : February 02, 2017 Ajay Kumar @ Billa ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 55 dated 12.09.2016, registered under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), at Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur. While issuing notice of motion on 28.11.2016, the petitioner was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail, subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are that the petitioner was armed with a baseball bat and inflicted injuries upon the complainant, but as per the Medico-legal Report (MLR), there is no injury on the person of the Monika 2017.02.02 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-42156 of 2016 complainant by a blunt weapon. He further submits that the petitioner has joined investigation and no further recoveries are to be made from him as the baseball bat has already been allegedly recovered. Learned State counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that as per the FIR, the petitioner, along with his co-accused, has inflicted serious injuries on the complainant. The fact, whether any injury was inflicted by the petitioner, is debatable. The same would be deciphered during the trial. The petitioner has already joined investigation and learned State counsel admits that no further recovery is to be made from him. It is further not disputed that there is no other criminal case pending against him. The trial, which is yet to start, is likely to take a long time to conclude.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the order dated 28.11.2016 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing observed herein above shall be considered as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE February 02, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.

Monika 2017.02.02 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document