Present:- Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu Sr. Advocate with Vs. the State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1065161
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-10-2012
AppellantPresent:- Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu Sr. Advocate with
RespondentThe State of Punjab
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m-32109 o”1. in the high court of punjab & haryana, chandigarh crl. misc. not m-32109 of 2012 date of decision:10. 12.2012 birinder singh ....petitioner versus the state of punjab ...respondent -- coram: hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik present:- mr.anmol rattan sidhu, sr.advocate with mr.v.d.goyal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.amit chaudhary, dag, punjab for the state. mr.s.p.s.sidhu, advocate for the complainant. -- vijender singh malik, j. birinder singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of fir no.04 dated 05.01.2012 at police station muktsar city, district muktsar, for an offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 ipc, to which sections 498-a and 406 ipc were added later on. learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2012. according to him, crl. misc. not m-32109 o”2. the petitioner is a haemophiliac. according to him, the petitioner was attacked by his in-laws, who came to his dental clinic well armed. according to him, the injuries shown to be on the persons of major singh and judge singh are described and adjudged by doctors at private nursing home and no finding regarding the same has been obtained from a government hospital. he has further submitted that it is a matrimonial matter, which turned sour and the petitioner was there at his nursing home when his in-laws attacked him. according to him, if it is believed that the petitioner caused injuries to the other side, they were caused in exercise of right of private defence. learned state counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant and others on his side went to the petitioner to talk to him. according to him, the injuries were caused on the chest repeatedly and injuries on the person of major singh and judge singh were declared dangerous to life. he has further submitted that the evidence of material witnesses is going on and the petitioner should not be allowed bail as he is threatening the complainant and others.the petitioner is in custody. there is nothing on the record to suggest that while being in custody, he is extending threats. moreover, no record of a report made to the police regarding those threats is on the record. crl. misc. not m-32109 o”3. it is a fact that four persons on the side of the complainant came to the dental clinic of the petitioner and the petitioner being alone may not have been in a position to cause serious injuries to the complainant and others.the petitioner himself is also in receipt of injuries. it is the complainant and others.who came to the clinic of the petitioner and it is not the petitioner, who went to the complainant and others to attack. the petitioner is in custody not for the last five months. in these circumstances, i find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. december 10, 2012 (vijender singh malik) dinesh judge
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M-32109 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-32109 of 2012 Date of Decision:

10. 12.2012 Birinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent -- CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.D.Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for the State.

Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

-- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

Birinder Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.04 dated 05.01.2012 at Police Station Muktsar City, District Muktsar, for an offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 IPC, to which sections 498-A and 406 IPC were added later on.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2012.

According to him, Crl.

Misc.

not M-32109 o”

2. the petitioner is a haemophiliac.

According to him, the petitioner was attacked by his in-laws, who came to his dental clinic well armed.

According to him, the injuries shown to be on the persons of Major Singh and Judge Singh are described and adjudged by doctors at private nursing home and no finding regarding the same has been obtained from a government hospital.

He has further submitted that it is a matrimonial matter, which turned sour and the petitioner was there at his nursing home when his in-laws attacked him.

According to him, if it is believed that the petitioner caused injuries to the other side, they were caused in exercise of right of private defence.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant and others on his side went to the petitioner to talk to him.

According to him, the injuries were caused on the chest repeatedly and injuries on the person of Major Singh and Judge Singh were declared dangerous to life.

He has further submitted that the evidence of material witnesses is going on and the petitioner should not be allowed bail as he is threatening the complainant and otheRs.The petitioner is in custody.

There is nothing on the record to suggest that while being in custody, he is extending threats.

Moreover, no record of a report made to the police regarding those threats is on the record.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-32109 o”

3. It is a fact that four persons on the side of the complainant came to the dental clinic of the petitioner and the petitioner being alone may not have been in a position to cause serious injuries to the complainant and otheRs.The petitioner himself is also in receipt of injuries.

It is the complainant and otheRs.who came to the clinic of the petitioner and it is not the petitioner, who went to the complainant and others to attack.

The petitioner is in custody not for the last five months.

In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail.

Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.

December 10, 2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE