Samual @ Samol vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 16208 P&H

      106
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH


                                                  CRM-M-57401- 2022
                                                   Date of Decision:08.12.2022


      Ranvir Singh
                                                                       ...Petitioner

                                Versus

      State of Punjab
                                                                     ...Respondent


      CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

      Present:     Mr.Anshul Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner

                   Mr.JP Ratra, Sr.DAG, Punjab

                                       ...

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.P. Ratra, Sr.DAG, Punjab accepts notice of motion.

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of

anticipatory bail in case FIR No.120 dated 26.10.2022 under Sections 323,

324, 452, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC (Section 326 of the IPC added later on)

registered at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even some of

the co-accused have also received injuries in the fight. A cross case vide

Diary No.41 dated 21.11.2022 was registered against the complainant and

other persons. The petitioner is already ready and willing to join the

investigation.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that the

allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per MLR,

complainant has suffered as many as 10 injuries. The injuries have been For Subsequent orders see CRM-46869-2022, CRM-46870-2022, -- and 1 more.

                                    1 of 2

       CRM-M-57401- 2022                                                  :2:

caused on the vital part of the body i.e. head and one of such injury has

been declared grievous in nature. Learned counsel also submits that the

investigation is at initial stage and recovery is yet to be effected from the

petitioner and as such his custodial interrogation is necessary.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, I

am of the considered view that there are serious allegations against the

petitioner and specific role has been attributed to him. The petitioner has

been specifically named in the FIR. As many as ten injuries are alleged to

have been caused on the complainant and that too on the vital part of the

body i.e. head. One of such injury has been declared grievous in nature.

Moreover, investigation is still going on and, therefore, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for finding out the modus

operandi of commission of offence. It is settled proposition of law that

power exercisable under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is somewhat

extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised in exceptional cases.

This view of mine finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.

In view of the discussion made above, the present petition

being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                              (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
                                                     JUDGE
      8.12.2022
      MFK

      Whether speaking/reasoned                             Yes/No

      Whether Reportable                                    Yes/No

For Subsequent orders see CRM-46869-2022, CRM-46870-2022, -- and 1 more.

2 of 2