Judgment:
CRM not M-5543 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. not M-5543 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.2.2013 Kala Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Anjali Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) Petitioner Kala Singh son of Gurjant Singh has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.99 dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 452 and 506 read with section 149 by the police of Police Station Kotbhai, Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with her valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
3. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that no indicated offences are made out and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated CRM not M-5543 of 2013 (O&M) 2 by the complainant in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit.
4. The prosecution claimed that on 16.12.2012, petitioner along with his other co-accused have formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, came to the house, attacked complainant Harjinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh and caused multiple injuries to him with their respective weapons. The very direct and specific allegations are assigned to the present petitioner that he was a member of an unlawful assembly and inflicted a Kirpan blow, which landed on the left elbow of complainant and caused grievous injury, subject matter of offence punishable u/s 326 IPC.
5. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is main accused, who was armed with a deadly weapon (sword) and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. To me, his custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the weapon of offence. If he is allowed the concession of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of weapon and case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution and police will be deprived from effective investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. CRM not M-5543 of 2013 (O&M”
7. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. 18.2.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge