Allowed

Jagsir Sharma @ Jagveer Singh Sharma & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2014CRM-M/10294/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted a petition for anticipatory bail. The court converted interim bail into absolute bail, noting that petitioners had joined investigation and no further interrogation was needed, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to conditions in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Jagsir Sharma @ Jagveer Singh Sharma & Anr. Vs… — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM No.M-10294 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-10294 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 22.05.2014

¶5

Jagsir Sharma alias Jagveer Singh and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Amarjit Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Davinder Singh Khurana, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioners-Jagsir Sharma alias Jagveer Singh and another

¶17

sons of Des Raj, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.32 dated 05.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka.

¶18

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶20

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the

¶21

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.28 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM No.M-10294 of 2014

¶23

-2-

¶24

entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶25

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 04, 2014: -

¶26

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that initially the present criminal case was registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC but subsequently the complainant has fabricated the grievous injury on index finger, so as to enhance the gravity of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, with the connivance of the police. Moreover, all the injuries are stated to be on non-vital part of the body of the injured. The argument is that the occurrence in this case has taken place on 01.02.2014 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 05.02.2014 after due deliberation, consultation and the delay remained unexplained. Not only that, the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC was later on added, vide DDR No.20 dated 11.02.2014. In this manner, the petitioners were stated to have been falsely implicated by the police.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 05.05.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- each to his satisfaction.”

¶29

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Jagga Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶30

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.28 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CRM No.M-10294 of 2014 -3-

¶32

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners, by virtue of order dated April 04, 2014, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶33

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court.

¶34

May 22, 2014 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶35

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.28 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Jagsir Sharma @ Jagveer Singh Sharma & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagsir Sharma @ Jagveer Singh Sharma & Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Bunty Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tavinder Kaur @Nisha Vs State of Haryana

Gaurav Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Bharat Singh Bura Vs State of Haryana

Ramesh Gupta Vs State of Haryana