Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder @ Sabi vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2023
REENA
2023:PHHC:141675
205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54629-2023
Date of decision:- 07.11.2023
Narinder @ Sabi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: | Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. IPS Sabharwal, DAG Punjab
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition is made for grant of regular bail in case
FIR No. 190 dated 04.07.2020 registered under Sections 307, 326, 341, 379-B,
482, 148, 149, 120-B, 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3 of
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005
at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that as per the
allegations made in the FIR only one injury has been attributed to the petitioner
with sword on the left wrist of the injured Sanjeev Kumar. No offence under
Section 307 IPC is attracted in the absence of any medical opinion with regard to
the injury being dangerous to life. The petitioner was granted regular bail by the
learned trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter the
petitioner could not appear on 13.09.2022 and his bail was cancelled and
subsequently the petitioner was apprehended on 05.01.2023 and since then he is in
custody.
2023.11.07 18:28
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:141675
3. Per contra learned State counsel has opposes the grant of bail on the
ground that in the absence of opinion with regard to the nature of injury the
offence under Section 307 IPC is attracted as the injury with a sharp edged weapon
was inflicted on the vital part of the body of injured Sanjeev Kumar. Learned
State counsel further opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that
after his bail was cancelled due to non-appearance before the learned trial Court, he
attacked the injured once again.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record
this Court finds that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner is
behind the bars since 05.01.2023 and not even a single PW has been examined so
far and the trial of the case is progressing at a snail's pace.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.
6. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of
opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without
being prejudiced by observations of this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
November 07, 2023
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
REENA
2023.11.07 18:28
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
