High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/38932/2022dismissed

Karamjit Singh Alias Karmjit Singh Alias Kala v. State Of Punjab

2022-08-30Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38932-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2022 KARAMJIT SINGH ALIAS KARMJIT SINGH ALIAS KALA

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.189 dated 29.07.2022, registered under Sections 307 and 323 IPC, at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution version that alleged masonry trowel (iron krandi) blows on the head of the complainant, had resulted into grievous injuries, is not believable; that it was the complainant who came to the house of the petitioner and took an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the mother and wife of the petitioner on the pretext of opening a bank account, but no such account was opened and thus, he had committed the offence of cheating. Notice of motion.

On the asking of this Court, Ms. Monika Jalota, Senior DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that AMAN JAIN 2022.09.01 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-38932-2022 (O&M) -2there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner and the injuries suffered by the complainant at the hands of the petitioner, were declared as dangerous to the life and thus, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner gave two masonry trowel (iron krandi) blows on the head of the complainant, which as per the medical record, were declared dangerous to life. He thereafter, gave injuries on left shoulder and thumb of the complainant with wooden log. There are specific attributions to the petitioner. Thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

30.08.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.09.01 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment