Allowed

Rajan v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2012CRM-M/19098/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in an FIR involving simple injuries and cross-versions. The court noted the co-accused was already on bail and that extended custody served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing a bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Malout.

Rajan Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-19098 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-19098 of 2012 Date of decision: 20.07.2012.

Rajan

..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶11

Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent – State.

¶13

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.66 dated 02.06.2012 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 347, 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Lambi.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations in the FIR, injuries which has been attributed to the present petitioner are simple in nature and it is a case of version and cross-version. It is to be seen as to which of the party was more aggressive. Learned counsel further submits that both the parties are from common ancestor and they are closely related to each other. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Makhan Singh has been released on regular bail by the Court below.

¶16

Learned State counsel opposes the bail but does not

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-19098 of 2012

¶18

¶19

controvert the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused of the petitioner has been released on regular bail.

¶20

It is a case of version and cross version and it is yet to be seen as to which party was more aggressive. The injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature. Trial may take some time and no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody.

¶21

In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Malout.

¶22

20.07.2012 neetu

¶23

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

Rajan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan 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

Jatinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasvir Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Reenu Kumari @ Reena and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Krishan Bhardwaj and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.