IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-21122 of 2009 (O/M)
Date of Decision : October 09, 2009.
Surjit Singh .............Petitioner(s).
Versus.
State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s).
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab,
for respondent-State.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,
for complainant.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
Counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the
order dated 04.08.2009, passed by this Court, the petitioner had joined the
investigation and the recovery has also been effected.
This fact is not disputed by counsel for respondent-State, on
instructions from H.C. Karnail Singh, Police Station Sadar, Patiala. Counsel
for respondent-State, however, contends that the co-accused Harjinder Singh
has stated that the gun, which was used by him in the incident, was provided
by the petitioner. On being questioned by this Court, counsel for respondent-
State informs that Harjinder Singh is in judicial custody and no recovery of
gun has been effected from him.
Criminal Misc. No. M-21122 of 2009. -2-
In view of above fact, counsel for complainant vehemently
opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner and contends that firearm had
been used by the co-accused in the incident, and, therefore, the petitioner
should not be granted concession of bail.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been attributed
with a kirpan an injury which, although, is grievous, but on the hand, which
is not a vital part of the body and further that the weapon of offence has now
been recovered, the order dated 04.08.2009 is confirmed. However, the
petitioner shall have to comply with the provisions of Section 438 (2)
Cr.P.C.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
October 09, 2009.
sjks.