High CourtsSingle Bench

Tirath Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 P&H CK 0357

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabina, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 323, 34
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M - 35060 of 2010 (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

6 paragraphs · 293 words

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 55 dated 9.8.2009, under Sections 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Phul District Bathinda.

2.

The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are that he had come in the street armed with a dang along with other co-accused. Jagroop Singh caught hold of Makhan Singh and twisted his neck and threw him on the ground. Pargat Singh gave kick blows and knee blows on the person of Makhan Singh. Petitioner gave dang blows on the person of Makhan Singh. As a result of this Makhan Singh succumbed to his injuries. It has also been alleged in the FIR that Gulab Kaur and Baldev Singh also reached the spot but the said three accused caused injuries on their person also as well as on the person of the complainant.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per PW-1 there was no external mark of injury on the person of the deceased.

4.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of bail to the Petitioner is made out.

5.

The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are serious in nature. The Petitioner was allegedly armed with a dang at the time of the occurrence and had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased as well as the persons, who had come to rescue the deceased. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to scrutinize the statement of PW-1 in detail because the testimony of PW-1 would be read along with the statements of the witnesses, who give the ocular version.

6.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.