Ramanpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab

@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Rashpal Singh @ Bhatti, wherein it is alleged that on 13.01.2024 at about 9:00 PM, when he was present in his house, he heard noises from the street. When he came out, he saw that Rohit Singh @ Jundi, Sukhpal Singh @ Babbi, Rinku @ Janta, Gurjant Singh @ Gattu and Anmol Singh were quarreling with his cousin Pinderjit Singh @ Bhatti @ Bunty. When the complainant tried to intervene so as to pacify the matter, then Rohit Singh @ Jundi raised a lalkara upon which Anmol and Rinku @ Janta caught hold of the complainant and gave slaps to him. It is further alleged that Rohit Singh @ Jundi gave a blow with kirpan hitting the complainant on his head. Thereafter, Gurjant Singh @ Gattu took the kirpan from Rohit Singh and inflicted a blow again hitting on the head of the complainant as a result of which blood started oozing and the complainant fell on the ground.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that as a matter of fact he is sought to be involved on the premises that Rinku @ Janta, as named in the FIR, is the same person as the petitioner, namely, Ramanpreet Singh. It has further been submitted that even if all the allegations, as leveled in the FIR, are taken to be correct, still it is co-accused Rohit Singh and Gurjant Singh @ Gattu, who are attributed injuries with the help of kirpan on the head of the complainant and that no specific injury is attributed to Rinku @ Janta, who is not even stated to be armed with any weapon.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is also known by the name of Rinku @ Janta and that the parentage of the petitioner and also of Rinku @ Janta is same, as is mentioned in the FIR and that as such, Rinku @ Janta is none else, but the petitioner Ramanpreet Singh. It has further been submitted that two injuries were found on the person of the injured, which were in the shape of incised wounds both of which had to be stitched and both have declared as grievous injuries. Learned State counsel has submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and that the injuries inflicted by co-accused on the head of the complainant with kirpan resulted into grievous injuries, it is evident that he was part and parcel of the unlawful assembly.

This Court has considered rival submissions.

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the fact that the allegations are virtually substantiated from the medical evidence, wherein two incised wounds found on the head of the complainant and also that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and comprised the unlawful assembly, this Court does not find that any special case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner.

The petition is found to be sans merit and is hereby dismissed.