High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/43474/2021dismissed

Sunil Chauhan Alias Chota Daggu v. State Of Punjab

2021-11-29Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

CRM-M-43474-2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43474-2021 Date of decision: November 29, 2021 Sunil Chauhan @ Chota Daggu ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

This is the first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in case FIR No.153 dated 26.7.2020 under Sections 232, 234, 34, 120-B IPC (Sections 326, 148, 149 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station City-1 Sangrur, District Sangrur.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR recorded on the statement of Lakha Singh that Kuldeep Singh @ Bacchi and Mandeep Singh @ Dogar carrying a Dah had caused injuries on the left arm and left leg of the victim. When he raised his voice for help, Mandeep Singh @ Dogar again gave a Dah blow on the head and he fell down. That motive was that Baljit Kaur @ Billi, sister-in-law of the complainant and nephew Ajay had a family dispute and on that account, the accused persons caused the injuries.

SATISH KUMAR 2021.11.30 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-43474-2021 -2Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of the occurrence and there is no direct allegations against the petitioner.

Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer on the ground that the weapons used in the crime are yet to be recovered and the petitioner is a part of the conspiracy in which the injuries were caused to the victim. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the injury No.1 though attributed to co-accused Mandeep Singh @ Dogar with sharp edged weapon Dah is on the head of the complainant which was declared grievous in nature and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegations, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

The petition stands dismissed.

( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ) November 29, 2021 JUDGE satish Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SATISH KUMAR 2021.11.30 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document