High CourtsSingle Bench

Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 P&H CK 0387

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 324, 326, · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 54, 59
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 35675 Of 2020
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 · 361 words

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J

Heard through video conferencing.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.139 dated 12.08.2019, under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at

Police Station City Kotkapura, district Faridkot, offence under Section 324 IPC added later on through DDR No.18 dated 21.09.2019 at Police Station

City Kotakpura, district Faridkot and Section 326 IPC has been added subsequently through DDR No.19 dated 22.09.2019 at Police Station City

Kotakpura, district Faridkot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is alleged in the FIR that the complainant Phool Chand and his brother Mahavir had been caused

injuries with a KIRCH. He, however, contends that it is apparent from the contents of the FIR that the brother of the complainant, namely, Mahavir

had entered into relationship with Kulwinder Kaur and has started blackmailing her. The brother of the complainant entered into compromise with

Kulwinder Kaur and due to dispute with regard to the terms of the compromise, altercation took place between the parties. He further contends that

the petitioner himself had received injuries in the occurrence for which DDR was lodged. He also contends that the petitioner is in custody for over 04

months and is not involved in any other criminal case.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Hardev Singh, contends that although challan has been filed but charges are yet to be framed. He

also contends that the petitioner has been attributed KIRCH blows to the complainant and his brother.

Heard through video conferencing.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, especially when the petitioner himself had received injuries, he is in custody for

over 04 months, he is not involved in any other criminal case, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I

deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular

bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.