Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving armed entry and serious injuries. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting serious allegations and the unrecovered weapon, deeming it devoid of merit without expressing an opinion on merits.
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.M.No.M-1452 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-1452 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: January 16, 2012
Jaswant Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.2931 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-1452 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46, dated 11.9.2011, under Sections 307, 452, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Briefly stated, allegations against petitioner-accused are that he alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons entered the house of the complainant. Petitioner was armed with kirpan. All of them inflicted
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-1452 of 2012(O&M)
as many as ten injuries on the person of two persons including injury with sharp edged weapon on head of the son of complainant. Specific injury has also been attributed to the present petitioner-accused.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that petitioner is aged about 60 years and that injury attributed to him is only simple in nature.
However, there are serious allegations against petitioneraccused. He alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons entered the house of the complainant and caused injuries to the two persons. Weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerJaswant Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
16.1.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in cases involving serious allegations including entering a house armed with deadly weapons and causing multiple injuries.
Whether the financial and physical state of the petitioner entitles him to extraordinary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. despite serious allegations.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaswant Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
