CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 09 P&H CK 0145

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurdev Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 302, 307, 324
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. M-15431 of 2010
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

7 paragraphs · 398 words

Gurdev Singh, J.—Heard.

2.

Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been filed in Court and the same is taken on the record.

3.

Petitioner, Jaswinder Singh, who got lodged the FIR No. 177 dated 3.12.2007 under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Roopnagar, District Ropar, has filed the present petition u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the cancellation of the bail granted to Manjit Singh-respondent No. 2-accused, by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2010, on the ground that it was specifically deposed by him before the trial court as PW-9, that this accused also caused injuries to the deceased and that distorted version of the statement was given to this Court for securing the bail. It is also one of the ground in the petition for the cancellation of the bail that this accused is a rich man having strong muscle power. There is every possibility of his tempering with the prosecution witnesses.

4.

There is no denial of the fact that in the above said order, it was incorporated that in the statement made by this petitioner before the trial court, he did not name the said accused and made his statement only against the other accused. That appears to be factually incorrect. As per the copies of the statement of this petitioner, which was recorded by the trial court, as PW-9, he specifically named the present petitioner. However, he did not attribute any specific injury to him.

5.

It is pertinent to note that in his statement before the police, on the basis of which the present FIR was recorded, the petitioner came out with the statement that this accused gave blow with his kirpan on his head and during the post mortem examination, that injury was found to be fatal. However, during the investigation itself, the petitioner came out with the supplementary statement in which he stated that this blow with the help of sword was given by the other accused; namely Bonny. He stick to that stand while making his statement in the Court as PW-9. All other accused are already on regular bail except Harinder Singh, to whom the fatal injury has been attributed.

6.

When such is the position, I do not find any ground to the cancel the bail of the petitioner.

7.

Petition is dismissed accordingly.