In Crl.M.No.M-33104 of 2012, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding the petition devoid of merit given serious allegations and use of deadly weapons.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed as devoid of 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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-33104 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-33104 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: October 30, 2012
Balwinder Singh @ Nagi
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.D.S.Dalee, Advocate for the petitioner.
......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.63315 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-33104 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.48, dated 9.3.2012, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Sangrur.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that on 8.3.2012, complainant alongwith his son was going on his motor-cycle bearing No.PB13Q-6547 for hearing satsang at the ashram of Bapu Asharam, situated at Mehlan Road, Sangrur. When they were crossing main bazaar near Aggarwal Dharamshala, a car came from behind and crossed the motor-cycle. Thereafter driver of the car started driving the car at a slow speed and did not give side to the complainant. Driver of the car waylaid the complainant after reaching ahead of Sportking showroom and abused
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-33104 of 2012(O&M)
him. He also called 8 to 10 other persons by giving call from his mobile phone. All of them were armed with iron pipes and brick-bats. Petitioneraccused gave blows with iron-pipe on the back side of head of the complainant, due to which he fell down and other persons also caused him injuries.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that as per medico legal report, injuries received by complainant are simple in nature and hence offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. It is also contended that false case has been registered due to influence of complainant who is posted as Inspector in Vigilance Bureau Department.
However, petitioner is the main accused. There are serious allegations against him. He waylaid the complainant and he alongwith other persons caused him injuries. Petitioner gave blow on the head of the complainant with iron pipe.
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.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Balwinder Singh @ Nagi for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
30.10.2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving deadly weapons and serious injuries.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balwinder Singh @ Nagi
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
