CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Pawan Kumar vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 December 2012 · Citation: (2012) 12 P&H CK 0013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 307, 326, 379
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M. No. M-38377 of 2012 (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

10 paragraphs · 335 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

Crl.M.No. 72907 of 2012

1.

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.No. M-38377 of 2012

The present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 534, dated 8.12.2009, under Sections 326, 379, 307, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar.

2.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

3.

Brief allegations are that complainant was attacked by petitioner and co-accused while armed with deadly weapons like kirpans and dattars and caused as many as 28 injuries to the injured-complainant on various parts of his body including grievous injuries. Injured-complainant suffered more than 200 stitches. It has been mentioned in This Court''s order while deciding petition bearing Crl.M.No. M-13800 of 2011 filed by co-accused Sher Singh that injured-complainant had become practically handicapped as there was no movement of his wrist.

4.

It has been contended by Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused that he was found innocent after investigation by the police and that he had also suffered injuries a few days prior to this occurrence and hence, his hand was not working and hence, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

5.

However, as per the FIR, petitioner was armed with dattar. He alongwith co-accused attacked the complainant. He caused as many as 8 dattar blows on the wrist of the complainant, due to which complainant became handicapped as there is no movement of his wrist.

6.

Hence, in view of the serious allegations against petitioner-accused, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to him. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Pawan for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.