Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1947 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-11-05

LISA GILL

body2020
JUDGMENT Lisa Gill, J. - This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19. 2. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 79 dated 27.09.2019, under Sections 323, 324, 379-B, 148, 149 IPC (Section 326 IPC added subsequently), Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala. 3. Contentions on behalf of the petitioner, noted while issuing notice of motion on 18.09.2020 read as under:- "Counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury attributed to the petitioner is a datar blow near the ankle on the right leg of the complainant, Lovepreet Singh son of Kuldeep Singh. According to the counsel, the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Manpreet Singh and Manjit Singh who were granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.02.2020, Annexures P-3 and P-4. He pointed out that subsequently on addition of offence under Section 326 IPC, on an application filed by the said co-accused, the offence was permitted to be added by this Court vide orders dated 14.09.2020, Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. It is further submitted, that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation of the matter. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Daljit Singh, verifies that the petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. It is further verified that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 18.09.2020 is made absolute. Needless to say, the petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. 8. It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.