Satinder Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22905-2024 Date of decision: September 3rd, 2024 Satinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Singh Majithia, Advocate and Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.16 dated 04.02.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 of the IPC (Sections 325 and 326 of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station B Division, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 08.05.2024, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that a false and fabricated case has been planted upon the petitioner after six days of the alleged occurrence. As per allegations levelled, the petitioner inflicted knife blows on the nose, head, and fingers of the complainant and injuries on the father of the complainant, however, CCTV footage did not corroborate the version brought forth in the FIR in question."

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.09.04 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-22905-2024 -23.

Thereafter, vide order dated 21.05.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 21.05.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Bhupinder Singh, has not disputed the submissions made by the counsel opposite and further submitted that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required.

6.

However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner for extending him the concession of bail by arguing that the petitioner is in the habit of picking up quarrels with one and all and in which regard, the other neighbours of the locality have given a 'majornama'. 7.

On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel as to whether the petitioner is booked in any other criminal case, he, on instructions, has replied in the negative.

8.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 21.05.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023. September 3rd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.09.04 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh