CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sona @ Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 P&H CK 0077

HON’BLE JUDGES
L.N. Mittal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 324
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-28954 of 2011
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

6 paragraphs · 335 words

L.N. Mittal, J.—By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions for anticipatory bail i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-28954 of 2011 filed by accused Sona @ Malkiat Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M-31657 of 2011 filed by accused Jatinder Singh - both seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.21 dated 15.02.2011, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 427, 379, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC), registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

3.

Large number of persons including the aforesaid petitioners attacked complainant Satbir Singh and his companion Harmanjit Singh and caused injuries to them.

4.

No injury or other overt act has been attributed to petitioner Sona @ Malkiat Singh. Therefore, in my opinion, he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. However, petitioner Jatinder Singh has been attributed injury with spade on the thigh of Harmanjit Singh injured.

5.

Counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the said injury is simple. However, merely on this basis, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to petitioner Jatinder Singh, who was not only armed with spade, but also inflicted blow with it. All circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration. Large number of accused persons attacked the complainant and his companion without any provocation. The complainant even rushed inside a nearby shop, but the assailants chased him there and caused injuries to him and when Harmanjit Singh came to his rescue, injuries were also caused to him. Articles in the shop were also damaged. In these circumstances, Jatinder Singh does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

6.

Accordingly, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, Crl. Misc. No. M-31657 of 2011 filed by accused Jatinder Singh is dismissed, whereas Crl. Misc. No. M-28954 of 2011 filed by accused Sona @ Malkiat Singh is allowed. Interim order dated 30.09.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-28954 of 2011 is made absolute.