Rajiv Kumar Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab




  

 



 !!"#$#%&'()')

*#+,-./01%-  ! # #%!/
2!/$-$
1  ! -%*3  !$4%5!% 
& 67 ) 1
, 
1


/!$!% & $) /38* ,-/95+" !

/ 8!4! # #%!/)  /))1):/9 -%*3) /)2#38+/%:95+" !

/ 8!".4;#%% ) <<<
, 
1
9) 






 

 





 






 






 


 !
"


#$%
 
&'%&'&&(



 



$%)*+&,(
#(
&(
#

#%


  


!

-

.

 
+  
 // 

 
./

,


The counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the only allegations against the petitioner are that co-accused Mohit and Karan assaulted complainant Madhu Bala and snatched her purse, at the instance of the present petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant, who is working in a private hospital at Amritsar and the petitioner is also driver of the ambulance attached with the said hospital. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that no specific injury or the act of

  == snatching is specifically attributed to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation. The present petition is resisted by the State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant. The State counsel submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR as per which the complainant was attacked and the miscreants snatched her purse and at the time of the occurrence the complainant also sustained injuries. The State counsel further submits that the snatched articles are yet to be recovered and the custody of the petitioner is required.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

There are serious allegations appearing on record that on 22.09.2022 at about 9:15 p.m. the complainant was going back to her house after doing duty in hospital and on the way she was intercepted by 4/5 boys armed with baseball bats and datar and two of them were having muffled faces and one of the miscreants was Karan who was working in the same hospital and all of them attacked the complainant and caused injuries to her and while going away they also snatched purse of the complainant which was containing Rs.5,000/- and some other articles. There are also allegations that the aforesaid attack was committed at the instance of petitioner who was nursing grudge against the complainant. Even petitioner has been named in the FIR and he is facing serious allegations of assault and snatching of purse from a lady.

  =>= For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail. Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed. However, any observation made hereinabove is not to be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

, 
1

'()')  



?8! 8!/$4!@#%:A/!$%!5&!$A

?8! 8!//!4/ 3;!&!$A