Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat @ Bharat Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2024
CRM-M-33825-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.208
Case No. : CRM-M-33825-2024
Decided On : September 03, 2024
Bharat @ Bharat Kumar .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.76, dated
14.09.2021, under Sections 323, 324, 341, 148, 149 IPC (Section 307 added
later on), registered at Police Station City-2, Abohar, District Fazilka.
2. The case in question was registered on the statement of Aniket.
As per the allegations, petitioner and other persons named in the FIR were
friends. About 2-3 months prior to lodging of FIR, an altercation took place
between the complainant and his cousin brother namely Pradeep Kumar,
with one Sunil Bhayia and Kannad. On 12.09.2021, the complainant Aniket
and his cousin Pradeep Kumar closed their fruit shop and were returning to
their house on motorcycle at about 09:30 PM. When they reached near
'Monu Juice Bhandar', then Sunil Bhayia and other co-accused,who were
present there, stopped their motorcycle. Sunil Bhayia and Kannad were
armed with kapas. They both told their friends to catch the complainant and
his cousin and they should not escape. Then all of them attacked the
complainant and his cousin Pradeep Kumar. Sunil Bhayia gave blow of his
kapa on the head of Pradeep Kumar, hitting on his back side. Kannad gave
blow of his kapa to the complainant, hitting on the centre of his forehead and
Sunil Bhayia also gave kapa blow to him which hit on the left arm near
wrist. They both ran away from the spot to save their lives. All the accused
persons chased them and started throwing bricks and brick bats on them.
One brick hit on the right side ankle of the complainant and after reaching
near houses, they fell down.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
was not armed with any weapon. No injury is attributed to the petitioner.
The injury attributed to Pradeep Kumar is attributed to Sunil Bhayia. He has
further submitted that interim bail was granted to the petitioner by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka but he could not join
investigation. So, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the Status Report by way of
affidavit of Arun Mundan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-
Division Abohar, District Fazilka, on behalf of respondent - State of Punjab.
She has fairly admitted that the petitioner was empty-handed. He was
member of unlawful assembly, who made an attempt to kill the cousin
brother of the complainant and also caused injuries to the complainant.
5. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have also gone through the case file.
6. The petitioner was not armed with any weapon and no injury has
been attributed to the petitioner. At the most, he was a member of unlawful
assembly and other members of the said assembly had caused injuries to the
complainant and his cousin brother. No recovery is to be effected from the
petitioner. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka had
granted interim bail to the petitioner but on the next date, neither petitioner
nor his counsel was present in the Court and the police made statement that
petitioner had failed to join the investigation till date. The application
moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed.
7. Keeping in view the role of the petitioner and no recovery is to be
effected from him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve
any useful purpose.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that
in the eventuality of arrest of the petitioner in the instant case, he shall be
enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond/surety bond to the
satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall
join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating
Agency. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. in letter and spirit.
9. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations
recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
September 03, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
