Allowed

Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh @ Bitta & Another v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2017CRM-M/11852/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged under IPC Sections 324, 326, 427 and 34. The court observed the case is version and cross-version and only the trial court can decide the aggressor. The petition was allowed, making interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim bail order dated 7.4.2017 made absolute; petitioners directed to join investigation when called and abide by conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh @ Bitta & Another Vs… — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-11852 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:1.8.2017

¶5

Jasbir Singh alias Jasvir Singh alias Bitta and another

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.45 dated 29.5.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 324, 326, 427 and 34 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala.

¶14

Notice of motion has been issued in this case.

¶15

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Rohit Ahuja, learned Advocate appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the

¶17

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.02 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Misc. No.M-11852 of 2017

¶19

[2]

¶20

record.

¶21

From the record, I find that it is a case of version and crossversion. It is yet to be decided by the trial Court as to who was the aggressor party on the basis of evidence. As per the complainant's version, the petitioners were armed with `Datar' and had inflicted injuries on the non-vital part of the person of the complainant. Petitioner No.1-Jasbir Singh alias Jasvir Singh alias Bitta has also suffered grievous injury.

¶22

The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

¶23

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 7.4.2017 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

August 1, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶25

hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶26

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.02 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh @ Bitta & Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh @ Bitta & Another 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

Bhuvan Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harwant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Kumar @ Nusi Vs State of Punjab

Mandeep Kaur @ Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Deepak Kaushal Vs State of Punjab