Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Oct 2024CRM-M/17331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition in an FIR for offences including Section 307 IPC and Arms Act provisions. Only role attributed to the petitioner was giving a danda blow, while the gunshot causing the Section 307 injury was by co-accused Kamaljeet Singh. Complainant's statement was recorded; petitioner had nine months' custody with no other cases. Bail allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate on usual terms.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ******

¶2

201

¶3

CRM-M-17331-2024 Date of Decision.:07.10.2024

¶4

Ravi Kumar …..Pe--oner

Vs.

State of Punjab

.….Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶10

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The pe��oner is seeking regular bail by way of pe��on filed under Sec�on 439 Cr.P.C in case FIR No.005 dated 04.01.2024 under Sec�ons 307, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sec�ons 25, 27 of Arms Act registered at Police Sta�on City Khara, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

¶14

As per the allega�ons contained in the FIR (Annexure P-1) lodged on the complaint of Sarbjeet Singh, on 04.01.2024, at about 04:30 p.m. he was waylaid by Kamaljeet Singh (co-accused) along with one unknown person, who caused injuries to him. Unknown person is a;ributed to have given danda blow to the complainant Sarbjeet Singh whereas co-accused Kamaljeet Singh is a;ributed to have fired a shot from his pistol, which hit on the waist on the le< side of complainant.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that pe��oner is not named in the FIR. Even if he is stated to be the unknown person as referred in the FIR,

¶16

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.07 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-17331-2024

¶18

-2-

¶19

the only injury a;ributed to him is to have given a danda blow not a;rac�ng Sec�on 307 IPC.

¶20

In compliance of the previous order dated 07.08.2024, learned counsel for the pe��oner has also place on record the copy of statement of the complainant Sarabjit Singh recorded before the trial Court submi?ng that statement of complainant has already been recorded and there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses.

¶21

Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that only role a;ributed to the pe��oner is to have given a danda blow; and that injury a;rac�ng Sec�on 307 IPC is a;ributed to co-accused Kamaljeet and not to the pe��oner.

¶22

The custody cer�ficate indicates that pe��oner is in custody for the last 09 months. He is not involved in any other case.

¶23

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, but without commen�ng anything further on the merits of the case, this pe��on is allowed and pe��oner is admi;ed to bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the sa�sfac�on of the Learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and condi�ons.

¶24

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶25

October 07, 2024

¶26

Nee�ka Tuteja

¶27

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶28

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.07 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi 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

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sunita Rani and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Assan Kalan Vs Surender and Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Ram Parkash and Anr.

Harjot Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwant Singh Dhillon Alias Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab