Dismissed

Ballar @ Navi Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2023CRM-M/2379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving grievous hurt and attempt to murder. The High Court dismissed the prayer, holding that the petitioner, along with co-accused, entered the complainant's house, thrashed him and his aunt, and dealt a dangerous blow to the abdomen.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Ballar @ Navi Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-2379-2023 Date of Decision: January 17, 2023

¶3

BALLAR @ NAVI KUMAR ........ Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

STATE OF PUNJAB ......... Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶7

Present: Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab

¶9

¶10

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.97 dated 07.11.2022 registered under Sections 452, 324, 341, 307, 323 read with 34 IPC, at Police Station Behram District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a perusal of the FIR, no specific role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner which falls within the domain of Section 307 IPC and as such petitioner deserves the concession of grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent State and seriously opposed the prayer made in the petition. Learned State Counsel has read over the statement of the injured recorded during the investigation who has very

¶15

specifically stated that the present petitioner gave gainti blow on the right TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.01.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment P&H High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-2379-2023

¶17

[2]

¶18

side of abdomen which, as per the learned State Counsel, has been declared to be dangerous to life.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of grant of anticipatory bail particularly, under the sequence of facts narrated in the FIR as regards the incident in question, wherein the petitioner along with his other co-accused, named in the FIR, entered the house of the complainant and thrashed him, besides even his aunt.

¶20

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

17.01.2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶23

TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.01.19 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment P&H High Court, Chandigarh

Ballar @ Navi Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ballar @ Navi Kumar 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

Deepak Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Vikas @ Vicky Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Singh Vs N/S Gauav Electronics and Anr.

Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta Vs State of Punjab

Ranjeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others