Dismissed

Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2012CRM-M/986/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was the main accused in a case involving an armed attack causing grievous injury, with an additional Section 326 IPC charge. The court rejected the claim for bail, noting the gravity of the allegations and the weapon used by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition for grant of anticipatory bail dismissed; order confirmed from Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

Satwant Singh Vs State of Punjab — Money Laundering | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-986 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-986 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: January 11, 2012

Satwant Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.2036 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-986 of 2012

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.140, dated 31.10.2011, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, and Section 326 IPC was added lateron, registered at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana City.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order dated 3.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶19

Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he alongwith co-accused, namely, Baljinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Paramjit Singh and Balkaran Singh entered the house of complainant while armed

¶20

-2-

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-986 of 2012(O&M)

¶22

with deadly weapons, like, dang , sword and caused injuries to complainantHarbans Singh and his wife, Rachhpal Kaur. Present petitioner-accused was armed with sword. He caused injury with sword on left elbow of Rachhpal Kaur, which was found grievous. Hence, injury regarding which offence under Section 326 IPC has been added has been attributed to present petitioner-accused.

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that parties are closely related and there is delay in lodging the FIR. It is also contended that petitioner also sustained injury in the occurrence and, however, there is no explanation of the said injury.

¶24

However, petitioner is main accused. He was armed with sword. His name was specifically mentioned in the FIR. He alongwith coaccused attacked the complainant and his wife by entering his house and caused injuries. Weapon of offence is also yet to be recovered. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.

¶25

Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerSatwant Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit

¶26

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶27

11.1.2012 meenu

Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwant Singh 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

Ajit Singh Vs Amir Singh and Anr.

Kulvir Singh & Anr. Vs Baljit Singh

Sant Ram Panthi and Ors. Vs Ram Swarath Bhushan and Ors.

M/S Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Baljinder Singh

Hans Raj Vs State of Punjab

Gulshan Rai Vs Harnam Kaur and Ors.