Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manga Singh Alias Mehar Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Crl. Misc. -M No. 26376 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. -M No. 26376 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 8.9.2011
Manga Singh alias Mehar Singh and another
..Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the petitioners were arrested and released on bail as all the offences were found to be bailable. However, later on offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC were added on the opinion of the doctor. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail.
The submission is that the injured has got himself examined from a private doctor. Cross-case has been registered against the complainant in FIR registered under Sections 452/354/34 IPC as they had trespassed into the house of the petitioners and misbehaved with the sister of petitioner No.2.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that injury attributed to petitioner No.2 on the head of Vir Singh was found to be dangerous to life as he had to be operated upon. The injury attributed to petitioner No.1 is on the wrist of left hand of the complainant. Considering the injuries attributed to the petitioners, they do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, Crl. Misc. -M No. 26376 of 2011 -2- petitioner No.2 to whom injury on the head of Vir Singh, has been attributed, does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail as the injured had to be operated upon. Petition qua petitioner No.2 is dismissed.
The injury attributed to petitioner No.1 being on the wrist of left hand of the complainant, in my opinion, he having already been released on bail, is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He shall appear before Investigating Officer on 16.9.2011 at 10.00 A.M. In case petitioner No.1 is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) 8.9.2011 Judge Meenu