Suminderpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

(1) Crl. Misc. No.M-6981 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 25, 2017 Suminder Preet Singh ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(s).

(2) Crl. Misc. No.M-8637 of 2017 (O&M) Gurmail Singh ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-8637-2017 and proxy for Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-6981-2017.

Mr. C.L. Pawar, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab.

Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the complainant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.06 dated 18.01.2017. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of

-2Indian Penal Code(for short-IPC) and 326 IPC added later on, at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana.

Heard.

As per the allegations in the FIR, the occurrence took place on 12.01.2017 when the brother of complainant objected to defecatingurinating by the dog of petitioner Suminder Preet Singh in front of his house. In the occurrence, complainant Krishan Kumar received one injury on the face while his brother Jagdish Kumar had received two injuries, out of which one was declared grievous. Injury attributed to Suminder Preet Singh has been declared simple in nature while grievous injury on the person of Jagdish Kumar and complainant have been attributed to Gurmail Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of version and cross-version. While referring to the MLR of Suminder Preet Singh, he submits that he had suffered one injury i.e. incised wound on the left parietal region, which was declared simple as no fresh bone injury was seen. Petitioner Gurmail Singh also suffered two injuries which were also declared simple in nature. The matter was reported to the police with a delay of six days and it is yet to be ascertained during invesitgation as to which was aggressor party.

Learned State counsel submits that both the petitioners have joined the investigation, which is still in progress but their custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of further investigation as weapon of offence has also been recovered.

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail

-3to the petitioners submitting that the injury on the person of Jagdish Kumar was grievous in nature and has been attributed to Gurmail Singh. Regarding the delay in reporting the matter to the police, learned counsel for the complainant submits that both the injured were admitted in hospital and could not report the matter to the police in time. Though the delay is not a factor to be seen at this stage but keeping in view the fact that it is a case of version and cross-version in which both the parties have suffered injuries and the investigation is still in progress to find as to which party was aggressor, both these petitions are allowed. Orders dated 15.03.

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

(iv) that the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court, which the trial Court will decide on the basis of evidence collected during investigation.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) October 25, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No