High CourtsSingle Bench

Goldy @ Karan Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 P&H CK 0204

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 148, 149, 201, 307, 323, 324, 336, 451, 427, 506 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 2321 Of 2021
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

20 paragraphs · 341 words

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 120 dated 30.10.2019, registered under Sections

307/323/324/451/427/336/506/148/149/201 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar (Rural).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was involved in the present FIR on the disclosure of a co-accused. It is further submitted

that later on complainant/victim Lal Maish has entered into a compromise with the main accused and a petition, bearing CRM-M-5839-2020, has

already been filed by Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Lovepreet Singh @ Labha, seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of the said compromise, in

which notice has been issued and the same is still pending before this Court.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab, who is also appearing through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jaspal Singh, could not dispute the factual position. It is also not disputed that petitioner was named

on the disclosure of a co-accused.

Learned State counsel further submits that the co-accused, against whom there were the allegations of causing injuries, has already been granted

concession of regular bail by the trial Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner was named

on the disclosure of a co-accused and as per allegations in the FIR, he is not attributed any injury and also in view of the fact that victim has already

compromised the matter with aforesaid two co-accused and a petition, seeking quashing of the FIR qua said co-accused on the basis of the

compromise, is pending before this Court, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the

conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

However, it will be open for the Investigating Officer to call upon the petitioner to join investigation, if required, by issuing a written notice in this

regard.