Partly allowed

Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2009CRM-M/10951/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order declined anticipatory bail to petitioner Parminder Singh due to serious injuries caused to the complainant in an unlawful assembly. The petition of petitioner Surinder Singh was dismissed as withdrawn, but the Court directed the jail authorities to facilitate his upcoming examination.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. No. M-9945 of 2009 declined; Criminal Misc. No. M-10951 of 2009 dismissed as withdrawn. Direction to Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana to facilitate petitioner's examination.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-9945 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: 28^th April, 2009

¶4

Parminder Singh @ Pindri

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

… Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. M-10951 of 2009

¶10

Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶16

Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶17

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the complainant.

¶18

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶19

By this common order, two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-9945 of 2009 preferred by Parminder Singh @ Pindri and Criminal Misc. No. M-10951 of 2009 preferred by Suridner Singh (Kanda) @ Mani shall be decided together.

¶20

¶21

Criminal Misc. Nos. M-9945 of 2009 & M-10951 of 2009

¶22

Petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri has sought anticipatory bail and Suridner Singh (Kanda) @ Mani has sought regular bail in case FIR No. 53 dated 09.03.2009 registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana under Sections 307,452, 323, 506, 148 & 149 IPC.

¶23

There was a partnership dispute between the petitioners and the complainant. It is alleged that Parminder Singh @ Pindri had gathered various persons and they, armed with lethal weapons, caused injuries to the complainant Amandeep Singh and to his mother, Paramjit Kaur. Petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri has not only gathered persons, but also raised lalkara and caused injuries to Paramjit Kaur.

¶24

Mr. P.K. Gupta appearing for petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri, has stated that in the FIR no injury has been attributed to Parminder Singh @ Pindri and he has only raised lalkara.

¶25

To controvert this, counsel for the State has submitted that petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri has caused injuries to Paramjit Kaur, mother of the complainant Amandeep Singh.

¶26

Mr. P.K. Gupta has stated that injury attributed to the petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri is simple in nature.

¶27

In the present case, bail cannot be decided, solely taking into consideration the fact that petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri has caused simple injury to Paramjit Kaur and has raised lalkara. The whole scenario is to be taken into consideration that Parminder Singh @ Pindri has gathered various persons, who were members of unlawful assembly and caused injuries.

¶28

I have seen the injury suffered by Amandeep Singh. It is very serious in nature. Therefore, no ground is made out to grant pre-arrest bail

¶29

¶30

Criminal Misc. Nos. M-9945 of 2009 & M-10951 of 2009

¶31

to the petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri. However, in case petitioner Parminder Singh @ Pindri surrenders before the trial Court within ten days from today, his regular bail application shall be decided within three days after the period of police remand is over.

¶32

In view of this, Criminal Misc. No. M-9945 of 2009 is declined.

¶33

Petitioner Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani has caused injury to Amandeep Singh, which was declared dangerous to life.

¶34

Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, appearing for the petitioner Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani, has stated that injured was discharged from the hospital on 18^th March, 2009 and he has resumed his day to day avocation. Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that petitioner Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani is in custody since 12^th March, 2009. It has further been submitted that petitioner Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani has to undertake examination of BBA and examination is to commence from 8^th May, 2009.

¶35

Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, appearing for the complainant, has stated that injury caused by the petitioner was very serious in nature. Complainant was operated upon and part of his skull was missing. An operation was performed and now, procedure to treat the complainant by bone-grafting is to be undertaken.

¶36

In view of this, Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to renew the same later. However, he has prayed that adequate arrangement may be made to enable the petitioner Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani to undertake his examination.

¶37

As prayed, Criminal Misc. No. M-10451 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶38

Criminal Misc. Nos. M-9945 of 2009 & M-10951 of 2009

¶39

¶40

Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana shall make adequate arrangement to facilitate petitioner Surinder Singh (Kanda) @ Mani to undertake his examination.

¶41

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶42

April 28, 2009 rps

Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ladha Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Anjana Rani Vs Bias Chand and Ors.

Ranjit Kaur Vs Mohan Singh

Bhola Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.