CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Charanjit Singh and another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 November 2011 · Citation: (2011) 11 P&H CK 0250

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Bindal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 328, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous M No. 22785 of 2011 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 362 words

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners who are accused in FIR No. 43 dated 25.4.2011, registered under Sections 498A, 328, 120B IPC at Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the FIR false allegations have been levelled against the Petitioners regarding administering poison to the complainant Harpreet Kaur, whereas when she was admitted in the hospital, no clinical symptom of any poison was found. Merely because in the Chemical Examiner report organ phosphorus compound has been detected, it does not prove that she was administered the same forcefully. As there is contradiction in the two versions. The Petitioners deserve to be granted the benefit of doubt.

3.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that once organ phosphorus compound has been found in the Chemical Examiner report, that is sufficient at this stage to reject the prayer of the Petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail. Even if there are no clinical symptom, some times the same depends upon quantity consumed.

4.

Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a case in which the prosecuting agency is siding with the accused from the very beginning. There is manipulation in the hospital record. In fact, the stomach of the complainant was washed when she was taken to hospital. Husband of the complainant was arrested and was released on bail as the challan was not presented within the stipulated period after his arrest, for which even enquiry has been marked against the Investigating officer. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail.

5.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, where the allegations against the Petitioners are that they along with other accused forcibly administered poison to the complainant Harpreet Kaur, which ultimately was detected in the Chemical Examiner''s report, even if at this stage it is sought to be argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the clinical symptoms do not support the prosecution version, in my opinion, the Petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail.

6.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.