High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32121/2020dismissed

Surjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-10-12Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 104) CRM-M-32121 of 2020 Date of Decision: 12.10.2020 Surjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Madan Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

By this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, upon FIR no.102, dated 05.09.2020 having been registered at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 452 and 506 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submits that only a simple injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the back of Bhupinder Singh and in any case it is a dispute arising out of non-payment of the dues to the petitioner and his companions, by the complainant and his companions.

Notice of motion is issued, with Mr. Amit Mehta, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepting notice on behalf of the respondent State, on the asking of the court.

He submits that he has taken instructions and a total of 5 VIKAS CHANDER 2020.10.13 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

104) CRM-M-32121 of 2020 -2injuries were caused to two persons, i.e. Bhupinder Singh and Balbir Singh, with the injury attributed to the petitioner being a simple one on the back of Bhupinder Singh.

Upon a specific query to the learned State counsel, he has stated that there is no injury on the side of the accused. Hence, in the opinion of this court, with the petitioner along with his companions having entered into the house of the complainant (as per the FIR), and they all having inflicted 5 injuries on two persons, I would see no reason to entertain this petition by which anticipatory bail is sought. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.

Nothing stated herein above will be taken to be an observation on the merits of the case but only in the context of this petition seeking 'prearrest bail'. 12.10.2020 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes

VIKAS CHANDER 2020.10.13 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document