AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nawab Singh, J.—This order disposes of afore-mentioned two anticipatory bail applications filed in case bearing FIR No. 110 dated November 12th, 2011 under Sections 148, 323, 307, 452 and 120B read with Section 149 IPC registered in Police Station City Fazilka, District Ferozepur. Allegations, in brief against the petitioners are that on November 11th, 2012 at about 11 PM they along with their co-accused armed with deadly weapons viz dattas (handle of the spade) and baseball bats reached the house of Ramesh Kataria-complainant in three vehicles. They caused injuries to Ramesh Kataria and his brother Surinder Kumar. Anurag-petitioner also placed his turban around the neck of Ramesh Kataria and tried to throttle in order to kill him. An alarm was raised. A few residents of the locality reached the spot. The accused managed to escape.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that the injuries suffered by Ramesh Kataria and Surinder Kumar were not serious in nature so, they should be allowed bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by Ms. Anju Arora, counsel for the complainant have stated that Jaswinder Singh alias Rocky was challenged in about 15 cases. The detail of the same, as mentioned in the reply filed by the State, is given as under:
It has been stated by learned State counsel that petitioner is a proclaimed offender in case bearing FIR No. 107 dated July 7th, 2006 under Sections 302 IPC Police Station 3 North Chandigarh. Allegations against the petitioners are grave. They came at 11 PM in the night armed with deadly weapons at the house of the complainant and caused injuries to them. So, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.
This Court would not like to discuss in detail the evidence collected so far by the prosecution because it may prejudice the case of either party. It has been held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Kumari Sujman Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 65 that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima-facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. Suffice it to say that there appears to be prima-facie evidence against the petitioners, which dis-entitles them to pre-arrest bail. The applications are dismissed.