Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-35500-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35500-2024 Decided on : 03.12.2024 Baljit Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the complainant.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS r/w Section 438 Cr.PC, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.343 dated 18.12.2023 under Sections 307, 324, 506, 323 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran. 2.

On 03.09.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that it is a case of version and cross-version. In addition to the submissions made on the last date of hearing, it has been contended that the occurrence in question took place in the agricultural fields of the petitioner himself and thus, it is SONIA BURA 2024.12.04 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-35500-2024 -2evident that it was the opposite party, which had aggressed into his property with lethal weapons leaving him with no other option but to attack the opposite party in his selfdefence. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Surjit Singh, has not disputed the place of occurrence. It has also not been disputed, on instructions, that the petitioner sustained as many as 18 injuries on his person at the hands of prime accused Avtar Singh belonging to the complainant party. Furthermore, it has also not been disputed that the DDR version, wherein the petitioner has been made an accused was registered much after the present FIR i.e. FIR No.343 dated 18.12.2023 under Sections 307/324/506/323/34 of the IPC, had been lodged at the instance of the petitioner party."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 03.09.2024, petitioner has joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating officer. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 03.09.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.PC/482(2) of BNSS. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 03.12.2024 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.12.04 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document