High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vijay Chapri And Others vs State Of Punjab on 24 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Chapri And Others vs State Of Punjab on 24 August, 2009
CRM-M-10161 of 2009 (O&M)                            -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                         ****

CRM-M-10161 of 2009 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 24.08.2009

****

Vijay Chapri and others . . . . Petitioners

VS.

State of Punjab                                      . . . . Respondent


                        ****

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

****

Present: Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the respondent/State.

****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail in case FIR No.95 dated 21.6.2008 registered

under Sections 326, 324 and 34 IPC at Police Station City South,

District Moga.

The allegations against the petitioners are that they

have caused injuries to Jagtar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh.

Injury No.1 on the part of Jagtar Singh has been declared grievous

after x-ray report. All the three petitioners actively participated in

the commission of offence. Interim bail was granted by this Court

on 17.4.2009 and the petitioners were directed to join the

investigation. However, the case was adjourned to 10.07.2009. On

10.7.2009, it was found that petitioners have not joined the

investigation, therefore they were again directed to join the
CRM-M-10161 of 2009 (O&M) -2-

investigation and the case was adjourned to 31.7.2009. On

31.7.2009, petitioners were again directed to join the investigation

and the case was adjourned for today.

Today, learned counsel for the State, on instructions

received from HC Kikar Singh, submits that the petitioners have

not joined the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also shown his

total ignorance as to whether the petitioners have joined the

investigation or not.

Keeping in view the gravity of offence as well as the

conduct of the petitioners that they are enjoying the concession of

anticipatory bail granted by this Court without joining the

investigation though directed repeatedly, I do not find it to be a fit

case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the present petition is

dismissed.



                                        (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
AUGUST 24, 2009                                 JUDGE
vivek