A short order dismissing a petition for anticipatory bail. The single-judge court held that no case was made out for indulgence, rejecting the petitioner's justification of a bona fide belief in a compromise and the lack of explanation for evading the process for nearly five years.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Petitioner to face trial.
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.
CRM-M 10908/2016
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:01.04.2016
Sunny Walia @ IK
.............Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Prateek Pandit,Advocate for the petitioner
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.78 dated 17.5.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452, 436, 427, 152, 380, 506, 148,149 IPC (offence under Sections 326,452 IPC deleted later on and offences under Sections 324/152 IPC added) PS Division No.5, Jalandhar.
For the occurrence on the night of 17.5.2009, whereby the petitioner accused being a part of an unlawful assembly had entered the house of complainant Balkishan and inflicted injuries while setting his shop on fire, he was nominated as an accused.
Petitioner was declared a PO on 20.11.2010 and now after rest of the co-accused have been acquitted vide judgment dated 3.1.2015 on complainant party turning hostile. Petitioner is seeking
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.04.02 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
CRM-M 10908/2016
113
anticipatory bail to face trial.
It is contended that there was a dispute between neighbours and compromise having been effected, the petitioner being a Cleaner on a truck had gone to Maharashtra resulting into he being declared a PO. Thus, it is sought to be urged that the case of the petitioner is bona fide.
After hearing learned counsel, no case for indulgence is
made out.
Even if the petitioner under a bona fide belief of compromise had initially stayed away from the proceedings there is absolutely no justification for evading the process of law for almost five years when an application before the trial court for grant of anticipatory bail was moved on 23.11.2015.
Dismissed.
01.04.2016 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.04.02 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the petitioner's evasion of legal process for five years.
Whether the petitioner's claim of a bona fide belief in a compromise justifies avoiding trial proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunny Walia @ IK
State of Punjab
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
