High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lakhmir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhmir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                   Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-31740 of 2008
                               Date of Decision: December 03, 2008


Lakhmir Singh
                                                  .....PETITIONER(S)

                               VERSUS


State of Haryana
                                                .....RESPONDENT(S)
                           .     .      .


CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -      Mr.   R.N.  Kush,  Advocate, with

Mr. Y.S. Turka, Advocate, for the
petitioner.

                           .     .      .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

                This    petition        has    been   filed   under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in

case FIR No.164 dated 1.11.2008 lodged for offences

under Section(s) 307, 34 IPC with Police Station,

Sadar, Ambala.

Learned counsel contends that a

drunkard came on a religious function and fell in the

fire. The petitioner could not have been implicated

for the same. The other argument is that there is a

delay in lodging of the FIR in so much as incident

took place on 23.10.2008 while FIR has been lodged on

1.11.2008.

Learned counsel further contends that

no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and
Crl. Misc. No. M-31740 of 2008 [2]

simple injuries have been received by injured, Amar

Singh.

I have considered the contentions of

the learned counsel.

Perusal of FIR indicates that on

23.10.2008, when the complainant went to Guga Mari to

pay obeisance at about 9.00 PM, the petitioner came

swinging from one side to other and caught hold of

both the arms of the complainant. The complainant was

pulled and pushed into the fire. Right portion of the

body and arm got burnt.

So far as delay is concerned, prima

facie the same stands explained.

I have considered the contention of

learned counsel in the context of allegations made.

The manner in which the incident is

alleged to have been taken place, does not entitle

the petitioner to any relief under Section 438

Cr.P.C. dehors the fact that no recovery is to be

effected.

The petition is dismissed.


                                                            (AJAI LAMBA)
December 03, 2008                                              JUDGE
avin