High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 04 P&H CK 0053

Nishan Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M No.11216 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 269 words

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (ORAL)

Prayer in this second application is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in cross case of DDR No.29 dated 05.07.2017 under Sections 326,

323, 324, 148, 149 IPC in FIR No.88 dated 11.06.2017 registered under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at

Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran.

In the first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner i.e. CRM-M No.45653 of 2017, notice of motion

has been issued and after hearing both the parties, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.12.2017.

The present second application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been filed on the same grounds which were available to the

petitioner at that point of time and the only reason given for filing second application is that brother of the petitioner namely Uttam Singh has been

granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.03.2018 in CRM-M No.7712 of 2018.

After going through the allegations in the FIR, it is apparent that the petitioner is attributed the grievous injury to the complainant â€" Surinder Singh

and the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused â€" Uttam Singh, who has already been granted the concession of anticipatory

bail.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the complainant and considering the fact that the petitioner is attributed the

grievous injury on the complainant â€" Surinder Singh, I find that no fresh ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.