Gurbir Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab



  
        
  



!"!

#$ %%& %& % 



 






    

  





  
$  '( & )

  ) )

  ((  

 



   
 
 

  


!

 
"
  



 ) )

  ((

* &

+(,



 #


 

 


  




$%
%
& %





 
"%
    
$ 

" 
 $

'

( # & 
" 
!

!

$

 
 %

 #

 
!



 


 
 
#
  %
 $



 

)*
+,-
 
.-/0././
 

$ 
 

$

" 
!

!

 
  
23.

,.,
,.2
,.-
24
 20
* 
 
23/
*
5 
$ 
 6


7 
 $

 
 
  



   
 

 
,.,
*


 

 
+

&  
 
 %

 



&



1 
&

 

.  
+.

 
 

'$%



$ 
%


 
 
  %
 $
%
 
$ 


$
  8 
!

!



 
/0./0 
 

'$%

 
1 

( $ 
1 


$
  
 
'$ 
$



 
/.././
 
 ,-33,././
%
 

Learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, contends that the petitioners had caused injuries to the complainant party. However, he does not dispute the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused, as noticed above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner No.1 has been attributed injuries attracting Section 323 IPC. Though petitioner No.2 has allegedly caused the aforesaid injury on the person of 

1 
%
 
 
'

 



 
 '

  
 
   $
 
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served by sending or keeping the petitioners in custody. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. The petitioners are  


 




 


&  $$






 %







 % 

$$

$ 
   %
 $

 
  

*





9 :

9 
 

 
  







 

2,4
5.6

 


'

$
  It is made clear that if pursuant to and in compliance with this order, the petitioners do not cooperate with the investigating agency, the

, investigating agency would be liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail.

%%& %& %

+ ) )

  ((,  
#'



;

 
  : #

<
=:+ ;

 
 $<
=:+