High CourtsSingle Bench

Prem Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 February 2012 · Citation: (2012) 02 P&H CK 0077

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 323, 34
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1078 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

5 paragraphs · 423 words

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present petition has been filed by Prem Singh son of Balbir Singh. He seeks regular bail in a case arising out of FIR No.141 dated 05.08.2011 registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur under Sections 302, 323 and 34 IPC.

2.

It is stated in the FIR that Des Singh armed with a Dang, Jagga Singh armed with a Sota, Chiman Singh son of Des Singh, the present petitioner Prem Singh and Balbir Singh armed with Sotas came at the spot. Des Singh is stated to have given a Dang blow on the head of Gajjan Singh. Jagga Singh also gave a Sota blow on the head of Gajjan Singh. Whereas, Chiman Singh and Prem Singh are stated to have given internal injuries to Gajjan Singh with the help of Sotis.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the post-mortem report (Annexure P-2), wherein it is stated that deceased Gajjan Singh had received only three injuries. Injury No.1 was swelling of 4 cm in diameter on the right occipital region of skull. Injury No.2 was an abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the lateral aspect of left wrist and injury No.3 was a reddish contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the lateral aspect of left elbow. These two injuries have been attributed to Chiman Singh and the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant Karnail Singh has not attributed any specific injury to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is stated in the FIR that the petitioner has given an internal injury which has no external mark. Learned counsel further submits that even if the maximum latitude is given to the prosecution, there are two simple injuries which are abrasion and contusion having very small dimensions of 1 cm x 1 cm and 1 cm x 0.5 cm, which can be attributed to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that these minor injuries can also be a result of fall.

4.

Taking into account the nature of injuries attributed to the petitioner, this Court at the outset cannot defer the contention of the counsel that the complainant party has inflated the number of accused. Furthermore, application of Section 34 IPC will be a moot question. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled to grant of bail.

5.

Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. However, anything said herein may not be construed as an expression on merits of the case.