Dismissed

Gagan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2012CRM-M/15813/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that given the serious allegations of assault with a sharp-edged weapon targeting a vital body part, extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail could not be granted.

What did the court decide?

Petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed as devoid of merit.

Gagan Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-15813 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-15813 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 29, 2012

Gagan Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

.......

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

Crl.M.No.31842 of 2012

¶16

Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P4.

¶17

The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Crl.M.No.31843 of 2012

¶20

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-15813 of 2012

¶22

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.78, dated 27.3.2012, under Sections 324, 323, 427, 356, 148, 149 IPC later on added Section 326 IPC, registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the whole record carefully,

¶24

Crl.M.No.M-15813 of 2012(O&M)

¶25

-2-

¶26

including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶27

Brief allegations are that petitioner alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons waylaid the complainant. Co-accused Shera raised lalkara and thereafter complainant was attacked. He received as many as 12 injuries. Present petitioner-accused was armed with a sharp edged weapon, i.e., kirch and two kirch blows were attributed to him, i.e., one on left side above the chest and below the shoulder and another on front side of left thigh.

¶28

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that only simple injuries have been attributed to him and that main injuries have been attributed to co-accused Shera. It is also contended that his case is similar to co-accused Ravi Kumar. It is further submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version and that petitioner has also sustained injuries.

¶29

On the other hand, it has been stated by learned counsel for the complainant that case of petitioner is not similar to co-accused Ravi Kumar as he was armed with only base bat and not with sharp edged weapon. It is also contended that injuries allegedly attributed to petitioner are self inflicted injuries and the same are only contusions and no cross case has been registered in this case.

¶30

There are serious allegations against petitioner-accused. He was also armed with sharp edged weapon. One of the injuries attributed to

¶31

Crl.M.No.M-15813 of 2012(O&M)

¶32

-3-

¶33

him is on vital part of the body, i.e., near chest. Injured was operated upon for treating the said injuries. His case cannot be said to be similar to coaccused Ravi Kumar, who has been granted interim bail by this Court. Injury attributed to Ravi Kumar is with base bat, whereas injuries attributed to present petitioner are with sharp edged weapon.

¶34

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.

¶35

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Gagan Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶36

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶37

29.5.2012 meenu

Gagan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhagwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nitin Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Punjab

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Shivali and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.