High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 July, 2009
 CRM No. M-17829 of 2009                          1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                  CRM No. M-17829 of 2009 (O&M)
                                  Date of decision: 9.7.2009

Dharam Singh                                          ...Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Punjab                                       ...Respondent


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:     Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate,
             with Mr. V.D. Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case

registered against him under Sections 323, 325, 307 read with Section

34 IPC at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana, vide FIR No.167 dated

12th November, 2008.

The allegations against the petitioner is that he gave a stick

(dang) blow to the complainant on the head resulting in an injury which

was declared dangerous to life. The petitioner had to be referred to Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh for

treatment of the said injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this court. Thus, the

petitioner also deserves the same concession.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.
CRM No. M-17829 of 2009 2

I do not find any force in the argument that the petitioner

deserves the concession of anticipatory bail on parity with the

co-accused. The main injury leading to offence under Section 307 IPC

is attributed to the petitioner. The allegation against him is that he gave

dang blow on the head of the complainant, who is a lady, with such

force that she became unconscious. This injury was later declared

dangerous to life.

Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that

the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The

petition is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
July 09, 2009
‘rajpal’