← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24439/2020dismissed

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2020-08-26Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CRM-M-24439-2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

(118) CRM-M-24439-2020 Date of Decision: August 26, 2020 Vijay Kumar .. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .. Respondent (Through video conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, DAG, Punjab.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.66 dated 07.07.2019 under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has wrongly been roped in the present FIR and there was a delay in recording the statement of the victim and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

NARESH KUMAR 2020.08.26 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-24439-2020 Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the specific allegations have been made against the petitioner for inflicting the injuries and one of the injury has been declared as grievous. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. Merely that there is a delay in recording the statement of the victim will not absolve the petitioner in any manner of the allegations. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and the injuries have been attributed to the petitioner and one of the injury attributed to the petitioner is grievous. That being so, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to recover the weapons used in the crime. No ground is made out to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) August 26, 2020 JUDGE harsha/naresh.k Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2020.08.26 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh