Balvir Chand vs State Of Punjab on 15 September, 2017

223-a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 26223 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 15, 2017

Balvir Chand …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26262 of 2017 (OM)

Naresh Kumar @ Papri …..Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent
Criminal Misc. No.M- 27031 of 2017 (OM)

Kewal Krishan …..Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Kawaljyot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Abhay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the complainant.

***

LISA GILL, J.

This order shall dispose of three petitions i.e. Criminal Misc.

Nos. M- 26223, 26262 and 27031 of 2017. The facts of the case are

extracted from CRM-M-26223-2017 for the sake of convenience.

The petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No. 84 dated 15.06.2017 under Sections 323, 354, 341 IPC and Section 325

IPC (added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara.

It is contended that there is a dispute regarding property

between the parties. FIR No. 37 dated 15.06.2017 was registered against the

1 of 3
19-09-2017 22:12:47 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26223 of 2017 (OM) -2-

complainant-party at 11.42 hours. In respect to the petitioners in CRM-M-

26223 and 26262 of 2017, it is submitted that the allegations attracting the

rigours of Sections 354, 325 IPC if at all, are not qua the said petitioners.

Present is admittedly a case of version and cross version. Moreover, the said

petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to interim order dated

16.08.2017 (in CRM-M-26223 and 26262 of 2017). The said petitioners are

not involved in any other criminal case.

In respect to the petitioner – Kewal Krishan (in CRM-M-

27031-2017), it is submitted, that he has needlessly been involved due to the

property dispute. Section 354 IPC has been added with an oblique motive.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Balwan

Singh, verifies that the petitioners (in CRM-M-26223 and 26262 of 2017)

have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

They are not reported to be involved in any other criminal case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the said

petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

In respect to the petitioner – Kewal Krishan, a perusal of the

FIR reveals specific allegations against him attracting the rigours of Section

354 IPC. There is no ground for affording the concession of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner – Kewal Krishan.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just

and expedient to allow CRM-M-26223 and 26262 of 2017. Consequently,

2 of 3
19-09-2017 22:12:48 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 26223 of 2017 (OM) -3-

order dated 16.08.2017 (in CRM-M-26223 and 26262 of 2017) is made

absolute.

CRM-M-27031 of 2017 is, accordingly, dismissed.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above

are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the

trial/investigation.

(Lisa Gill)
September 15, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
19-09-2017 22:12:48 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *