Allowed

Sheru @ Rajnikant v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2015CRM-M/10086/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an FIR regarding grievous hurt. The court accepted that the injury was simple and allowed bail upon submission of the report and trial proceedings. Entries regarding newspaper publication are standard queries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail pending submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Sheru @ Rajnikant Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 20^th July, 2015

Sheru @ Rajnikant

� Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

� Respondent

�� !��!��

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate

¶14

for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. C.S. Brar, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶16

��!��"��#�� $

¶17

Allegations against the present petitioner Sheru @ Rajnikant in this anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.139 dated 27.08.2014 registered at Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar under Sections 452/427/323/324/506/148/149 IPC are that on 26.08.2014 at 8.30 p.m. the petitioner armed with Kirpan had caused injuries to complainant Rakesh Kumar @ Papu. As per the allegations of the prosecution the injury by this accused has been caused on the head of the injured.

¶18

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.07.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶19

¶20

��

¶21

The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said injury is simple in nature and that there is a contradiction in the ocular version as well as medical record, have not been controverted by learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Amrik Singh, who has readily accepted that the injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature. It is further contended that similarly placed co< accused/non<applicant has already been allowed bail, and in view of the principle of parity the petitioner also deserves the same relief.

¶22

In the light of these submissions, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan). He shall continue to join investigation and shall abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, petitioner will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶23

The petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶24

#��!��$� ��

¶25

�%&'��"�� ��

¶26

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.07.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sheru @ Rajnikant v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheru @ Rajnikant 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

Case details

Similar cases

Ramphal @ Bhilda Vs State of Haryana

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Lal Chand and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kaka @ Vinay Soni Vs State of Punjab

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab