Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Suvir Sehgal, J

The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.26 dated 30.03.2020 registered under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 and 188 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is a case of version and cross-version. The complainant and his companions are the aggressors who have

inflicted injuries on the co-accused. On the basis of the allegations in the FIR, he submits that co-accused Hans Raj, Joginder Singh, Sardari Lal are

alleged to be armed with dangs; and the petitioner is allegedly armed with a datar. The injuries attributed to these accused have been found to be

simple in nature. According to the counsel, injury inflicted by co-accused, Bishamber, has been found to be dangerous to life attracting offence under

Section 307 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the parity with the above named three co-accused and has relied upon the order dated

28.08.2020 passed by this Court in CRM-M-16363 of 2020 titled as Sardari Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab. He urges that the petitioner is in

custody since 31.03.2020. Though, according to the counsel, the challan has been presented on 26.06.2020 but the trial is not progressing due to the

outbreak of the virus.

Per contra, counsel for the State assisted by Mr.Jashandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition. Upon instructions from SI

Vijay Kumar, State counsel has not been able to dispute the fact that the injury attributed to the petitioner was declared to be simple, even that it was

caused on the forehead of injured, Shankardeep.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Considering the fact that it is a case of version and cross- version, the allegations against the

petitioner are of inflicting a simple injury, the gravity of offence, period of incarceration and the fact that the trial is likely to take time in concluding due

to spread of contagion, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing

bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.