Dismissed

Charanjit Singh @ Channa v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2011CRM-M/18912/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three connected petitions filed by Charanjit Singh and associates seeking pre-arrest bail against allegations of forcibly occupying forest land were dismissed. The court found that despite simple injuries, the formation of an unlawful assembly to interrupt official duties created peculiar circumstances negating bail eligibility.

What did the court decide?

All petitions lodged for grant of pre-arrest bail were dismissed.

Charanjit Singh @ Channa Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Cr.Misc. M 18912 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Cr.Misc. M 18912 of 2011 Date of decision:12.8.2011

¶5

Charanjit Singh @ Channa

petitioner

State of Punjab

respondent

Present:Mr. RS Manhas, Advocate.

¶11

Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G.Pb

¶12

M.M.S.BEDI, J.

¶13

This order will dispose of three connected petitions filed by Charanjit Singh @ Channa (Cr.Misc. M 18912 of 2011), Joga Singh (Cr.Misc. 19758 of 2011) and Sabh Singh @ Suba Singh (Cr.Misc. M 21481 of 2011).

¶14

The petitioners apprehend arrest in the case on the allegations levelled by Som Lal complainant alleging that on 25.5.2011 the complainant was operating tractor of Forest Department in the forest range of Mukerian at about 8.30 AM under the supervision of Onkar Singh, Range Officer,Dasuya. Another tractor was being driven by Surjit Singh. They were accompanied by Vijay Kumar , Shingara Ram, Om Parkash Verma, Forest Guards and Jaswant singh Forest Range Officer Mukerian and Malkiat Singh Tractor Operator. The complainant along with others was cultivating the land measuring 340 acres in order to plant trees. They

¶15

Cr.Misc. M 18912 of 2011

¶16

-2-

¶17

were attacked by Dalip Singh @ Deepa Nihang, Nirmal Singh, his brother Suba Singh, Sunil Masih, Charanjit singh, Joga Singh accompanied by 2530 unidentified persons armed with dangs, Kirpans and sharp edged weapons. They raised a lalkara to forcibly occupy the forest land.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioners.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the contents of the FIR wherein the active participation of Dalip Singh, Nirmal singh, Sunil Masih, Charanjit Singh petitioner and Joga Singh has been specifically mentioned.

¶20

I have carefully considered the contention of counsel for the petitioners that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioners but statements of the injured witnesses have been recorded, which indicate that Som lal had received five injuries, Om Parkash had received four injuries, out of which two were attributed to Charanjit Singh, Onkar Singh had received two injuries, which are attributed to Joga Singh and Jaswant Singh had also received injuries. The medico legal reports of the injured do not prima facie permit this court to presume that the injuries have been fabricated to falsely implicate the petitioners. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the injuries, if any, are simple. In ordinary course, on the basis of simple injuries, pre-arrest bail could have been granted but in peculiar circumstances of this case where the petitioners have constituted an unlawful assembly with an objective to interrupt the officials of the Forest Department in performing their official functions, no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of

¶21

Cr.Misc. M 18912 of 2011

¶22

-3-

¶23

pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Sabh Singh @ Suba Singh has been attributed an injury on the shoulder of Om Parkash.

¶24

All the petitions are dismissed.

¶25

Nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or before the investigating officer.

¶26

August12 , 2011 TSM

¶27

(M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE

Charanjit Singh @ Channa v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Singh @ Channa 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

Rajeev Vs State of Haryana

Rajdeep Singh S/O Shri Himmat Singh and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Hakku @ Hakmuddin Vs State of Haryana

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla & Ors.

Butta Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunny @ Doar @ Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana