Harpreet Singh Alias Happy v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46688-2022 Date of Decision:-12.10.2022 HARPREET SINGH ALIAS HAPPY ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.-

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH -.- Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.- KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case having FIR No.67 dated 5.6.2022 registered under Sections 323, 324, 326/34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Chohla Sahib District Tarn Taran. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the injuries in question were self-suffered or caused by friendly hand. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially the FIR was registered under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act but later on on the basis of the aforesaid fabricated injuries, an offence under Section 326 IPC was added by the police. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation with the police.

Notice of motion.

PUNEET CHAWLA 2022.10.14 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

( 2 ) CRM-M-46688-2022 On the asking of the Court, Mr. Chaman Lal Pawar, Addl. A.G. accepts notice on behalf of State of Punjab while Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed memorandum of appearance, which is taken record and they have resisted the petition.

The State counsel apprised the Court that the petitioner caused grievous injury with sharp edged weapon on the person of complainantManjit Singh and same is punishable under Section 326 IPC. The petitioner has failed to produce any document in support of his contention to the effect that injuries in question were fabricated by the complainant.

In view of the above, as the serious allegations are appearing on the record against the petitioner and the weapon used for commission of crime has to be recovered, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the proper and effective investigation of the case. So no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Consequently present petition is hereby dismissed. However, any observations made hereinabove are not to be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

( KARAMJIT SINGH) 12.10.2022 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No PUNEET CHAWLA 2022.10.14 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment