Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1800 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-12-11

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral) - Crl. Misc. No. 61211 of 2012 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. The Registry is directed to incorporate the necessary amendment in the memo of parties. Crl. Misc. No.M-26142 of 2012 1. Ranjit Singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 59 dated 12.05.2012 at Police Station Sadar Batala, District Gurdaspur, for an offence punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC, to which section 326 IPC was added later on. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is attributed an injury with datar on little finger of the left hand of Sarabjit Singh. According to him, Bikramjit Singh, who was alleged to be having sword during the occurrence is in custody. According to him, the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case with a view to take revenge upon the family of the petitioner. He further submits that the report regarding grievous hurt on the finger is also prepared 37 days after lodging of the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and datar, which is allegedly used by him in the occurrence has been recovered. He also admits that the report regarding the nature of injury has been received late and section 326 IPC was added to the case after 37 days of its registration. 4. Injury on the finger could be received when hand is raised to ward off a blow to head etc. but such injury can be manipulated also to make the case serious. The delay with which the report was received causes doubt in the mind of the court regarding the genuineness of the same. The question as to whether such injury is grievous would have to be decided by the trial court. The petitioner has joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order dated 29.08.2012 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.