The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a criminal case involving injury allegations, accepting their undertaking not to misuse the concession and noting they had joined investigation.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail allowed; order dated 10.11.2016 made absolute.
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 No.M-40123 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M- 40123 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: December 5 , 2017.
Koshalia Devi @ Kaushalya Rani and another
...... PETITIONER (s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S.Mundi, Advocate for the complainant.
LISA GILL, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.134 dated 30.09.2016 under Sections 323/326/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Machhiwara, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.
It is submitted that in fact the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners attacked them and caused injuries to them. The injuries on the petitioners are reflected in Medico Legal reports attached as Annexures P6 and
Omkar Singh 2017.12.07 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-40123 of 2016
-2-
P7, respectively. It is further submitted that during investigation the co-accused Jashandeep Singh who is attributed a Kahi blow on the head of the complainant, was found innocent. The petitioners, it is submitted, have joined investigation pursuant to order dated 10.11.2016. They undertake to face proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ajmer Singh, verifies that the petitioners have since joined investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from them. The petitioners, it is verified, are not involved in any other criminal case.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the Court, if released on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 10.11.2016 is made absolute.
It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.
December 5 , 2017. ‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Omkar Singh 2017.12.07 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Koshalia Devi @ Kaushalya Rani and another
State of Punjab
LISA GILL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
