The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, holding that no ground was made out as the weapon of offence had not been recovered and the alleged compromise was untrue.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M. No. M-12006 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.5.2011
Kuldip Singh
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate
for the petitioner
Sh.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Sh. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the complainant
K.C. Puri, J.
As per allegation of the prosecution, petitioner gave 2 kirch blows. On the last date of hearing, the interim order was obtained by representing that the matter has been compromised.
Sh. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the complainant – injured Baljinder Singh, has stated at the Bar that there is no compromise.
The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. So, no ground
for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri ) 20.5.2011 Judge chugh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the lack of weapon recovery and alleged lack of compromise.
Kuldip Singh
State of Punjab
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
