M-18421 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to join investigation, not induce witnesses, and not leave India.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. M-18421 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-18421 of 2012 Date of decision: 25.07.2012.
Baljinder Singh @ Balachna
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent – State.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.30 dated 24.02.2011 under Sections 452, 506, 364, 307, 326, 109, 115 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and even as per allegations in the FIR, simple injuries have been attributed to the petitioner. As per allegations, the petitioner was having 'datar' and raised 'lalkara' . The present FIR was registered on 24.02.2011 and being case of version and cross version, no efforts were made by the Police to arrest the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that in
Criminal Misc. No. M-18421 of 2012
2
case the petitioner still is required by the Investigating Officer, he is ready to join the investigation, if any.
Learned State counsel could not explain as to why Section 326 IPC is there as all the injuries are simple in nature and also why no efforts were made by the Police to make any arrest for a period of 1½ years.
Learned State counsel submits that it is a case of version and cross version and inquiry was made during this period and because of that reason, the petitioner could not be arrested and now the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of the weapon.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and keeping in view the nature of injuries as all the injuries are simple in nature and still Section 326 IPC has been added and also the fact that the FIR was registered much earlier i.e., on 24.02.2011 and the fact that only because of the inquiry, no action was taken, the present petition is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as under:-
(i)that the petitioner shall make himself available for
Criminal Misc. No. M-18421 of 2012
3
interrogation before investigating officer as and when required;
permission of the Court.
Disposed of accordingly.
25.07.2012 neetu
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the present maintenance of investigation lacuna and insufficient police action.
What conditions must be imposed on the petitioner to ensure his availability for interrogation and cooperation with the investigation.
Whether the inclusion of Section 326 IPC without evidence of grave injuries warrants the refusal of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baljinder Singh @ Balachna
State of Punjab
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
