The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faced serious allegations of attacking lawyers armed with pistols in their chamber, threatening them, and raising a lalkara. The court held the facts were serious and denied the relief.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed as it is devoid of any merit.
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-1455 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-1455 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: January 16, 2012
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.2934 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-1455 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.1, dated 2.1.2012, under Sections 307, 148, 149, 506, 323 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Briefly stated, allegations against petitioner-accused are that complainant, who is practising as Lawyer in the District Court, Amritsar, alongwith another Lawyer Sukhwinder Singh was doing his work while sitting in Chamber No.77-B when petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused armed with deadly weapons attacked them in the chamber. Present petitioner-accused had taken out a pistol from his waist band and pointed towards Aman Saini, Advocate. Co-accused Sabi also took out a pistol and Sabi also inflicted a blow on the nose of Amandeep Saini, Advocate.
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-1455 of 2012(O&M)
Lalkara was raised by Jagtar Singh, co-accused that they should not be spared as they were posing to be big advocates. Amandeep Singh fell on the ground and thereafter petitioner and other co-accused attacked them. Petitioner and co-accused also raised threat to them while leaving.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of no injury and rather co-accused, i.e., father of present petitioner has already been arrested and petitioner who was working as Steno-typist in the District Court Complex had demanded money from the complainant and hence dispute arose. It is also contended that present case has been registered falsely due to pressure of Bar Association, Amritsar, who passed resolution, Annexure P1.
Allegations against petitioner-accused are very serious in nature. He alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons including fire arms attacked a Lawyer in his chamber. Even if there was some dispute regarding payment of money for doing typing work for the complainant, petitioner should not have taken the law in his own hands and should not raise threat to the Lawyer in the chamber alongwith a pistol. 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 petitionerSukhdev Singh @ Sukha for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
16.1.2012
meenu
Crl.M.No.M-1455 of 2012(O&M) -3-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case alleging an armed attack on lawyers at their chamber.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
