The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail. The court held that allegations of attack with deadly weapons causing amputation precluded bail concession, noting an offence under Section 326 IPC was made out.
Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no pre-arrest bail granted.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.4.2011
Parminder Kumar @ Pindi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Ladhowal, District Ludhiana, vide FIR No.43 dated 29th March, 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. No particular role is attributed to the petitioner and grievous injury has not been caused. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
The allegations in the FIR are that the accused attacked Rajender Singh alias Sona and Survir with deadly weapons and damaged their vehicles. At the time of occurrence Parminder Kumar @ Pindi (petitioner herein) gave a sword blow which led to amputation of
Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2011 2
left hand finger of Rajender Singh. According to MLR, the left hand ring finger of injured was found amputated at the time of his medical examination. In view of same, the Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the pre-arrest bail application, observed that offence under Section 326 IPC is made out.
In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
26.4.2011 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of charges involving deadly weapons and grievous injury.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parminder Kumar @ Pindi
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
