Partly allowed

Subash Kumar Allias Bashi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2012CRM-M/29773/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition seeking anticipatory bail for offences under IPC and Arms Act. The court made the earlier interim bail absolute, conditioned on cooperating with the investigation and obeying bail conditions. No further substantive reasons were provided.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; earlier ad-interim anticipatory bail order made absolute; petitioner to join investigation and abide by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Subash Kumar Allias Bashi Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

..1..

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-29773 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-29773 of 2012 Date of Decision: 20^th November,2011

¶5

Subash Kumar Alias Bashi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner-Subash Kumar @ Bashi, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act is not attracted qua the petitioner since he was not armed with any fire arm. He further contends that the only injury attributed to the petitioner is on the head of Rajesh Kumar which was ultimately found to be simple in nature. He also contends that it is a case of version and cross-version. The two persons from the petitioner-side had also received the injuries in the alleged occurrence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI

¶17

..2..

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-29773 of 2012

¶19

Karanjit Singh, Police Station C-Division, Amritsar, submits that the petitioner did join the investigation on 13.11.2012 at 7.00 p.m however the weapon of the offence used by him, could not be recovered. She concedes the fact that the petitioner has been assigned the simple injury by means of base ball bat on the person of Rajesh Kumar. She also concedes that the cross case under Section 326 etc. has been registered against the complainant-side. Heard.

¶20

The present criminal litigation has arisen out of a version

¶21

and cross-version. Two persons from the petitioner-side have sustained injuries attracting the mischief of Section 326, IPC. The petitioner has been assigned the role of causing simple injury on the person of Rajesh Kumar. In compliance of the order dated 24.09.2012, the petitioner did join the investigation.

¶22

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 24.09.2012 passed by this Court whereby ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, is made absolute.

¶23

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as

¶24

and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency and abide by all the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

20^th November, 2012 seema

¶26

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

Subash Kumar Allias Bashi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Kumar Allias Bashi 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

Joginder Vs State of Haryana Andors

Nachattar Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kamal Verma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lavlesh Chander Bhardwaj and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Anish Sharma Vs Ajay Sood and Anr.