Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chamkaur Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 December, 2020
Author: Harnaresh Singh Gill
Bench: Harnaresh Singh Gill
CRM-M-30715-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30715-2020
Date of decision:01.12.2020
Chamkaur Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh Dullat, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
The status-report by way of an affidavit dated 13.10.2020 of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Bhawanigarh, filed in the Registry, is taken on record.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.212 dated 24.07.2020 registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC (Sections 186, 332, 333, 353 IPC added later on).
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Moreover, the witness-Jagsir Singh alias Jaggi had filed an affidavit dated 20.08.2020 to the effect that the petitioner was not present at the spot but as per the FIR he was shown to be present on the spot. It is further stated that earlier the FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC whereas subsequently 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2021 22:57:30 ::: CRM-M-30715-2020 -2- Section 186, 332, 333, 353 IPC were added.
On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer for grant of bail, states that injury No.1 was declared grievous in nature and the same having been caused with a spade, is attributed to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
As noticed above, injury No.1, which was declared grievous in nature, had been allegedly caused with the spade and is attributed to the petitioner. The seat of the said injury was the left temporal aspect of the head of the complainant. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries, especially injury No.1 and the weapon used for causing it, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
01.12.2020 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
ishwar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2021 22:57:30 :::