Judgment:
CRM No.M-14467 of 2014 & other case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM No.M-14467 of 2014 Jagdeep .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (2) CRM No.M-16948 of 2014 Amritpal and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent Date of Decision:20.05.2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As, identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions bearing CRM No.M-14467 of 2014 titled as Jagdeep Versus State of Punjab(for brevity “the 1st case”.) and CRM No.M-16948 of 2014, titled as Amritpal and another Versus State of Punjab(for short “the 2nd case”.), arising out of the same FIR/case, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. Petitioners-Jagdeep and Amritpal sons of Pritam Dass and Daulat Ram son of Natha Ram, have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Rani Seema 2014.05.21 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-14467 of 2014 & other case 2 Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.23 dated 15.03.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 and 506 IPC (the offences punishable under Sections 325 & 326 IPC were added later on), by the police of Police Station Lambra, Jalandhar.
3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 29, 2014 in the 1st petition:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that it is a case of version and cross-version, in which, Sandeep Kaur and Charanjit Singh sustained injuries on the side of the petitioner. The argument is that only simple injury on non-vital part of the body, is attributed to the petitioner. All the main injuries, subject matter of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 326 IPC, are attributed to other main accused(non-petitioners). Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 20.05.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 6. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Amneesh Bhanot, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner(in the 1st case) has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this Rani Seema 2014.05.21 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-14467 of 2014 & other case 3 stage. Only simple injuries are attributed to the petitioners. All the main injuries subject matter of offences punishable under Sections 325 & 326 IPC are assigned to other main accused(non-petitioners). Moreover, it is a case of version and cross-version. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any other criminal case. Since, even the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report(challan) against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by means of order dated April 29, 2014 by this Court, is hereby made absolute. However, Amritpal and Daulat Ram, petitioners in the 2nd petition are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the investigating agency. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail in this Court, in this respect. May 20, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.05.21 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh