IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-30029 of 2008
Date of Decision: February 03, 2009
Tarsem Lal & Others
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, assisted by
Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition under Section 438
Cr.P.C. prays for bail to the petitioners in case
FIR No.203 dated 7.10.2008 under Sections 326, 325,
324, 323, 452, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Model
Town, Hoshiarpur.
The petitioners, in this petition, are
Tarsem Lal, Baljit Singh @ Sonu and Mandeep Singh @
Monu. The allegations against the petitioners are in
the following terms:-
“… Then at about 6.30 P.M. I was present at shop
no.28 in sabzi Mandi where they came. Tarsem, Baljit,
Mandeep and three more unknown persons at once
entered the shop and seeing them I went to Chobara
then Mandip alias Monu gave a kirpan blow on me
which hit on my left leg. Then Baljit alias Sonu gave
Crl. Misc. No. M-30029 of 2008 [2]datar blow on me which hit left side of my head then,
Tarsem gave Kirpan blow which hit on my left ear.
Thereafter three unknown persons and Santokh Singh
and out of them some one gave kirpan on my left
finger, I fell on the floor and while lying down the
assailants caused me more injuries with their weapons.
On raising raula the assailants ran away from the spot
with their weapons and during the occurrence the gold
chain around my neck and Rs.8250/- from the pocket of
my shirt and my mobile Nokia – 9914 9914026240 fell
and were not traced…”
Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that only Mandeep Singh has been ascribed
injury on account of which Section 326 IPC has been
invoked. Mandeep Singh however is a juvenile. So far
as Tarsem Lal and Baljit Singh are concerned, they
have not been ascribed any such injury that would be
sufficient to invoke Section 326 IPC.
I have considered the contentions of
the learned counsel. Vide Order dated 18.11.2008,
the petitioners were required to show as to why
procedure as given out in Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has not been
followed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-
State, on instructions from ASI Surdev Singh, has
informed the Court that petitioner, Mandeep Singh,
has not made any such application.
I have also considered the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have not been ascribed any
injury that would invite provisions of Section 326
IPC.
Considering the manner in which the
Crl. Misc. No. M-30029 of 2008 [3]
injuries were caused, on perusal of the extracted
portion of the FIR above and the weapon of offence
with which the petitioners were armed, I do not find
any ground to grant concession of bail to the
petitioners.
Dehors the role, as many as 12
injuries had been received by the injured including
5 grievance injuries.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
February 03, 2009 JUDGE
avin