CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Parminder Kumar @ Pindi vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 P&H CK 0344

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajan Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 326
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-12093 of 2011 (O and M)
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

5 paragraphs · 230 words

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the Petitioner under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Ladhowal, District Ludhiana, vide FIR No. 43 dated 29th March, 2011.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. No particular role is attributed to the Petitioner and grievous injury has not been caused. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to bail.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

4.

The allegations in the FIR are that the accused attacked Rajender Singh alias Sona and Survir with deadly weapons and damaged their vehicles. At the time of occurrence Parminder Kumar @ Pindi (Petitioner herein) gave a sword blow which led to amputation of left hand finger of Rajender Singh. According to MLR, the left hand ring finger of injured was found amputated at the time of his medical examination. In view of same, the Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the pre-arrest bail application, observed that offence u/s 326 IPC is made out.

5.

In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that Petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.