Allowed

Satwinder Singh @ Ghugga v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2010CRM-M/17400/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC. The court observed there was a cross-version and injuries were sustained by persons from the petitioner's side, deeming it just and expedient to grant bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

Satwinder Singh @ Ghugga Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. M No. 17400 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 24, 2010

¶3

Satwinder Singh

¶4

...........Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab

¶7

..........Respondent

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

¶9

Present: Mr.Anant Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

¶10

¶11

Sabina, J.

¶12

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to him during the pendency of the trial in FIR No. 12 dated 20.1.2010, P.S.Sadar Jalandhar under Sections 323/324/452/506/148/149 later on added 326/307 IPC (Annexure P1).

¶13

The allegation against the petitioner is that at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was armed with kirpan and had inflicted injury on the head of the injured Randip Singh which was declared dangerous to the life.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version. Although so far no case has been registered qua the cross version put up by the petitioner's side but the same is being investigated by the Police. Yadvir Singh and Jaskaran Singh from the petitioner's side have also suffered two injuries' in the alleged

¶15

Crl. Misc. M No. 17400 of 2010

¶16

-2-

¶17

occurrence. Injury on the head of Yadvir Singh has been declared dangerous to life. Petitioner is in custody since 8.5.2010.

¶18

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has opposed the petition.

¶19

Yadvir Singh from the petitioner's side is alleged to have suffered incised wound on the occipital area and has also suffered incised wound on left forearm. So far as injured-Jaskaran Singh is concerned, he has suffered three injuries. Injuries no. 1 and 2 are incised wounds on the occipital area,whereas, injury No.3 is qua the left little finger which has been chopped off. Although in the present case, no case has been registered qua the cross version but keeping in view the fact that there are only incised wounds suffered by the persons from the petitioner's side and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 8.5.2010, it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

¶21

( Sabina ) Judge

¶22

August 24, 2010 arya

Satwinder Singh @ Ghugga v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwinder Singh @ Ghugga 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jot Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sawinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Saroj Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manu Sareen and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Taj Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Sharma Vs C B I