The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC, noting that the petitioner was armed and caused injuries, making custodial interrogation necessary.
The petition for anticipatory bail was 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-37689 of 2011(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-37689 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: January 2, 2012
Gurpreet Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab.
Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.68555 of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-37689 of 2011
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cross case registered under Sections 326 and 307 IPC in FIR No.52, dated 28.7.2011, under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 336, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order dated 17.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and, in fact, the main accused has already been released on bail.
Crl.M.No.M-37689 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
Bail application has been opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that specific injury with a sharp edged weapon has been attributed to the petitioner and that he alongwith co-accused caused injuries to three persons including the complainant in the cross case and that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered.
There are specific allegations against the petitioner-accused. He was armed with sharp edged weapon, i.e., Dattar . He caused injury to complainant. Co-accused also caused injuries to complainant and two other persons. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerGurpreet Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
( Ram Chand Gupta ) Judge
2.1.2012
meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is alleged to have caused injuries with a sharp edged weapon.
Whether cancellation of anticipatory bail is warranted in a case involving serious offences where the weapon remains unrecovered.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurpreet Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
