The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Surinder Kumar in an FIR alleging assault. The court noted the lack of medical evidence to classify a head injury under Section 307 IPC despite a Datar weapon allegation.
Petitioner released on bail upon arrest, to join investigation and abide by Section 438(2) conditions.
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.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
�����������������������
Date of decision: 12th August, 2015
Surinder Kumar
� Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
� Respondent
������������� ��������!����������������!�����
Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate
�����������!����"����#��� $
Allegations against the petitioner Surinder Kumar in this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.39 dated 18.03.2015 registered at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar under Sections 307/324/326/341/427/ 148/149 IPC, are that on 18.03.2015 petitioner armed with a Datar along with co;accused/non;applicant had assaulted the complainant victim Jatinder. As per the allegations, single blow is attributed to the petitioner on the lower right leg of the victim which is covered under Section 325 Cr.P.C.
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
2
����������������������
Learned State counsel though has sought to oppose grant of bail on the ground that one of the injuries on the head of the complainant by means of a Kirpan blow has been found dangerous which is punishable under Section 307 IPC being dangerous to life, however to the very specific query of the Court learned State counsel has failed to support his contentions by way of any medical evidence to bring the injury within the ambit of Section 307 IPC.
Keeping in view the role of the petitioner and that no useful purpose will be served by sending him into custody, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall 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. Petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that he 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.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
#�����������!����$� ������
�%&%'(���"������ ���
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in cases involving serious injury allegations where medical evidence for life-endangering injury is absent.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Surinder Kumar
State of Punjab
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
