Money Kumar vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Money Kumar son of Som Pal has applied for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely Arjan, Sumit Kumar @ Seetu and Amit, by means of FIR No. 116 dated 2.10.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 341 and 506 read with section 34 IPC (offence u/s 307 IPC was subsequently added) by the police of Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 26.9.2011, accused Arjan came to the house of complainant Parveen and took her son Sumit Kumar near the shop of Neeraj. Thereafter, all the accused surrounded him. Money Kumar (petitioner) was stated to have caused a Dattar blow on the wrist of right hand of her son Sumit Kumar injured. The complainant and other persons present at the spot raised the noise and subsequently, all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner indicated here-in-above.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this respect.

As is evident from the record, that according to the prosecution, the petitioner inflicted only one injury on the wrist of right hand of the injured. He did not repeat the injury. Whether the provisions of Section 307 IPC are attracted under the present set of circumstances or not, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. It is not a matter of dispute that all other co-accused of petitioner, have already been released on bail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, he was arrested on 7.10.2011, since then, he is in judicial custody and no longer required to be detained in jail for any purpose. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out of the record, as discussed here-in-before and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition is hereby accepted. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant connection.