Ravi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 16, 2025 Ravi ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Saurabh Savara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

CRM-690-2025:

For the reasons mentioned in the application, petitioner is exempted from filing the Aadhar Card in the present proceedings. Application stands disposed of.

CRM-M-1149-2025:

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner FIR No.

Date Section Police Station District Ravi s/o Binny 23.09.2022 S. 324 IPC (Later on, S. 307 IPC was added and S.

324 IPC deleted) Civil Lines Patiala

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially FIR under Section 324 IPC was registered with the allegation that the petitioner had caused a stab injury with knife, in the stomach of the complainant/injured - Sukhvir Singh. However, the petitioner was released on bail on that count. Further submits that it is much after i.e. about 1 year and 7 months, that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was added, based upon then available medical opinion, declaring the injury 'dangerous to life'.

Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is a debatable point as to whether after such huge delay, the actual injury can still be dangerous to life or not. He also submits that since the time of his arrest, after adding of Section 307 IPC, the petitioner is inside jail since 01.05.2024, i.e. for the last about 9 months. Moreover, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and not involved in any other case, except the present FIR. Conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the eye-witness - Harman Kaur (sister of the complainant/injured) has already got her statement recorded. However, learned State counsel is unable to counter the contention that the offence under Section 307 IPC has been added at a much later stage.

4.

Considering all the aspects and submissions of learned counsel for the parties having been recorded hereabove, the plea of bail of the petitioner is hereby accepted.

5.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his

furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

6.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

7.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

8.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 16, 2025 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO