High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhjinder Singh Alias Subha vs State Of Punjab on 6 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh Alias Subha vs State Of Punjab on 6 August, 2009
 CRM No. M-20948 of 2009                             1



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

                                CRM No. M-20948 of 2009 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: 6.8.2009

Sukhjinder Singh alias Subha                             ...Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Punjab                                          ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:    Ms. J.J. Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J.

This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner

in a case registered against him under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148 &

149 IPC at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No.59

dated 17th March, 2009.

According to the allegations, one Bhupender Singh and his

father Amrik Singh were called to the stadium by a telephonic call.

When they reached the stadium, they were attacked by the accused using

various weapons including Kirpans, Dattar & sticks. The allegation

against the petitioner is that he gave a Dasti Dattar blow on left leg of

the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that only

simple injury has been attributed to the petitioner, he therefore, deserves

to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given
CRM No. M-20948 of 2009 2

careful thought to the facts of the case.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar while dismissing

the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has observed that as

many as 16 injuries were inflicted on the body of Bhupender Singh

complainant. The prosecution brought to the notice of the court below

that intention of the assailant was to murder the complainant Bhupender

Singh and his father.

The petitioner actively participated in the crime. It appears

that pre-arrest bail application of the co-accused was dismissed by this

Court on 4th May, 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. M-11153 of 2009.

Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that

the petitioner has actively participated in the crime, I do not find it a fit

case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The

petition is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 06, 2009
‘rajpal’