Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh @ Manpreet Singh Mali vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058200
CRM-M-21094-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:058200
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21094-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.04.2024
Manpreet Singh @ Manpreet Singh Mali
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner by way of this second application filed under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')
seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.120 dated 17.09.2022 under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'IPC') (offence under Sections 307, 379-B, 325, 427, 201 of IPC
were added later on), registered at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot.
2. The FIR (supra) was registered at the instance of Hardeep
Singh on the allegations that he is running a CSC Centre under the name
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058200
2024:PHHC:058200
and style of Komal Service Centre in Village Bishnandi. On 15.09.2022 at
about 08:00 PM, after closing his shop, he was coming to his house in the
village Ramgarh (Bhagtuana) on the motorcycle bearing registration
No.PB-03X9460 TVS Apache. When he reached near brick-kiln at about
08:10 PM, then five persons surrounded his motorcycle and started beating
him. That due to the light of his motorcycle on the spot, he could
recognized four persons belonging to his village. Their names are Rajinder
Singh @ Raja son of Baldev Singh, Manpreet Singh Mali son of Ram
Khilari, Bittu son of Deepa Singh and Tej Singh son of Sia Ram, all
residents of village Ramgarh (Bhagtuana) and one unknown person
accompanied them. Rajinder Singh @ Raja attacked him with 'kappa'
carrying in his hand, which hit on his left arm and second attack hit middle
of his head. Then Rajinder Singh @ Raja made third attack, which hit his
right arm. Manpreet Singh @ Mali attacked him with 'kappa' carried in his
hand hitting his right knee and second attack hit his right arm. Then he
made third attack, which hit between his chest and belly. Then Bittu
attacked the complainant with base-ball carrying in his hand hitting his
chest and backside of my belly. Then he again attacked hitting his left knee
and one more attack hitting his left leg. Tej Singh attacked with base-ball
carrying in his hand hitting backside of his right arm. Tej Singh again
attacked on right backside of his neck. Thereafter, unknown person
attacked him with stick caught in his hand hitting his right arm and upper
portion near fingers. Then he again attacked on his right leg and knee. The
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058200
2024:PHHC:058200
above accused persons snatched his kit bag carrying laptop, cash amount of
Rs.26,500/-, keys of the shop and fingerprint machine and by threatening to
kill him, ran away from the spot with their weapons. Reason of enmity is
that our dispute regarding joint account of land is already pending in the
Hon'ble Court and they were compelling us to withdraw the case and in this
way, the accused persons in connivance with each other gave beatings and
injured him with their weapons. The passerby informed his father Gurnaib
Singh regarding the injuries sustained by him and his father reached on the
spot in the car, who took him to Civil Hospital, Jaito and got admitted
there. After giving first aid, the doctor referred him to Guru Gobind Singh
Medical College, Faridkot, where the doctors are treating him.
3. Earlier, the petitioner had moved this Court for grant of
anticipatory bail by filing CRM-M-54194-2023, which was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 05.01.2024. Now, second petition under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed without there being any change in the
factual position.
4. Learned State counsel appears on advance notice and opposes
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that
earlier petition filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was
rejected by this Court, as such he ought to have filed a petition for regular
bail by surrendering before the learned trial Court and the second
anticipatory bail, after rejection of the earlier application in connection with
the same case, is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058200
2024:PHHC:058200
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that serious
allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, which include
inflicting injuries on vital parts i.e. chest and abdomen with 'kappa', a
sharp-edged weapon. The petitioner also dealt a kappa blow on the right
knee and right elbow of the complainant. As such, no case is made out for
grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Furthermore, entertaining a second application for anticipatory
bail would amount to review or reconsideration of the earlier order passed
by a Bench having coordinate jurisdiction as the accusations have remained
unchanged. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgments
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (1) RCR (Crl.) 703, the Full Bench
of Calcutta High Court in Maya Rani Guin and etc. Vs. State of West
Bengal, 2003 (1) RCR (Crl.) 774, the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court
in Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005 (3) RCR (Crl.) 30
and by this Court in Rashpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-56246-
2023, decided on 09.11.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to spell out any
difference with regard to additional facts or circumstances, which were not
canvassed earlier. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to re-
agitate the same grounds taken in the earlier petition.
8. In view of the settled law discussed above, once the first
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058200
2024:PHHC:058200
anticipatory bail is denied, without there being any change in the factual
matrix of a particular case, second application for the same relief under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained by making new arguments or
twists or by introducing new circumstances, developments or material.
Thus, the second application, without any change in the factual situation of
the present case, is held to be not maintainable.
9. As an upshot of the above discussion, present petition stands
dismissed being bereft of any merit.
10. 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 ]
29.04.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
