Dayal Ram Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Dayal Ram vs State of Punjab and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 27, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1122397

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1122397
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jan 27, 2014
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dayal Ram

Respondent

State of Punjab and Others

Excerpt

.....thereafter the weapon of offence was recovered. he has further submitted that happy caused grevious injury falling within the ambit of section 326 ipc, whereas gurmail ram gave datar blow on the back of bhatia shalini 2014.01.29 10:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-31442 of2013o&m) -2- head of mukhtiar singh and daljit gave head injury to mukhtiar singh and as such, they are not entitled to concession of bail. notice of the petition was given to learned state counsel, as well as contesting respondents/accused. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. so far as accused happy is concerned, he has been attributed grevious injury falling within the ambit of section 326 ipc. the trial court has not even considered this aspect while granting bail to him. so, the order of trial court qua him is the result of non-application of mind. consequently, the petition stands partly allowed and the anticipatory bail qua happy accused stands dismissed. he shall surrender before the trial court within a week. so far as the remaining accused are concerned, they have been attributed simple injuries. the weapon of offence has already been recovered. so, the petition for cancellation of bail qua them, stands dismissed. january27 2014 (k.c.puri) shalini judge bhatia shalini 2014.01.29 10:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh

Full Judgment

CRM No.M-31442 OF2013O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-31442 OF2013O&M) DECIDED ON : 27.01.2014 Dayal Ram ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.S.S.

Chandumajra, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr.S.P.

Soi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 10.K.C.

PURI, J.

(ORAL) This is a petition for cancellation of bail to the respondents No.2 to 10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No.2 to 10 were not granted concession of interim bail on merits.

However, the police has not produced the medical record on three dates and on that account, interim bail was granted to them.

It is further submitted that thereafter the weapon of offence was recovered.

He has further submitted that Happy caused grevious injury falling within the ambit of Section 326 IPC, whereas Gurmail Ram gave datar blow on the back of Bhatia Shalini 2014.01.29 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-31442 OF2013O&M) -2- head of Mukhtiar Singh and Daljit gave head injury to Mukhtiar Singh and as such, they are not entitled to concession of bail.

Notice of the petition was given to learned State counsel, as well as contesting respondents/accused.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

So far as accused Happy is concerned, he has been attributed grevious injury falling within the ambit of Section 326 IPC.

The trial Court has not even considered this aspect while granting bail to him.

So, the order of trial Court qua him is the result of non-application of mind.

Consequently, the petition stands partly allowed and the anticipatory bail qua Happy accused stands dismissed.

He shall surrender before the trial Court within a week.

So far as the remaining accused are concerned, they have been attributed simple injuries.

The weapon of offence has already been recovered.

So, the petition for cancellation of bail qua them, stands dismissed.

JANUARY27 2014 (K.C.PURI) shalini JUDGE Bhatia Shalini 2014.01.29 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Dayal Ram vs State of Punjab and Others Same Subject Criminal