Bail - Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder - Accused is in custody for last more than 11 months - No witness examined till date - Trial likely to take time - Injured is not an indoor patient - Bail granted


Before :- S.S. Saron, J.
Criminal Misc. No. M-374 of 2011. D/d. 1.4.2011.

Manjinder Singh - Petitioner
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State :- Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

S.S. Saron, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 20.4.2010 for the offences
under Sections 307, 382, 324, 325, 323, 452, 148 and 149 IPC as also Sections 326, 450 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act which were added later.
3. The FIR in the case is registered on the statement of Vijay Kumar Verma who has alleged that on 19.4.2010 his son Maninder Kumar Verma came home from sheller at about 11.00 p.m. from Abhiana Mandi. A big stone was lying in front of the house of Charan Singh son of Kehar Singh. The son of the complainant removed the stone. Then Charan Singh objected to that who was he to remove the stone. Then Maninder Kumar son of the complainant said that it was difficult to pass the vehicle with the stone being there. Charan Singh uttered bad words and said that he would see him. The complainant was sleeping with his family on the 'Chaubara' of his house. At about 11.00 p.m., he heard a noise of knocking on their main gate. Then all of a sudden 7-8 persons came to the 'Chaubara' and by forcibly opening the door through stairs came in. Lights were on outside the 'Chaubara' and court-yard. The complainant saw after coming from his room that Charan Singh was holding a 'Danda', Parkash Kaur wife of Charan Singh was holding a 'Soti'. Narinder Singh and Manjinder Singh alias Lucky (petitioner) sons of Charan Singh were holding 'Kirpans. Jagdish Singh son of Gurnam Singh and Jaswinder Singh son of Baldev Singh were empty handed. Besides, there were two unidentified persons who were holding 'Kirpans' in their hands and were standing in the courtyard of their 'Chaubara'. Narinder Singh raised 'Lalkara' and asked Maninder Kumar to come out as they were to kill him on that day because he had hurled abuses to their father. In the meantime, Maninder Kumar came out on hearing the noise. Jagdish Singh and Jaswinder Singh caught hold of Maninder Kumar. Narinder Singh with an intention to kill Maninder Kumar gave a 'Kirpan' blow which hit on his head. Then Manjinder Singh alias Lucky (petitioner) gave a Kirpan blow on the head of Maninder Singh. The petitioner has also been attributed a rod blow on the head of Saurav, which hit Saurav on the back side of his head. As per medical report (Annexure-P.1) of Maninder Kumar Verma as regards injury on skull, no bone injury was observed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Maninder Kumar was discharged after two days. As regards Saurav Verma the report is there from R.P. Advanced Diagnostic Centre, Ropar which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is a private institute. In any case, on CT scan of the head, a fracture of occipital bone with overlying soft tissue scalp swelling described was found. Therefore, a fracture of the occipital bone is there on the person of Saurav Verma which injury is attributed to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Saurav Verma was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh by the Civil Hospital, Ropar and there is a prescription slip dated 22.4.2010 of the Punjab Health Systems Corporation that Saurav Verma was being referred to PGI, Chandigarh on request. However, it appears that he did not go to PGI. According to the learned counsel for the complainant Saurav Verma had gone to PGI but finding no proper care being provided and on account of harassment at PGI, he came back to Civil Hospital, Ropar. On 8.5.2010 (Annexure-P.3), the doctor recorded that the patient is referred to PGI, Chandigarh on the repeated request of his relatives. In the PGI record (Annexure-P.4) it is mentioned that patient i.e. Saurav Verma is an old case of assault sustained on 20.4.2010 when patient was hit by a sharp weapon. The patient initially was referred to PGI but went home without any information. No previous records were available. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the injured Saurav Verma had left the PGI on his own. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, Saurav Verma was not getting adequate treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and, therefore, he went to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for getting treatment. No record regarding the treatment being provided at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana has been placed on record nor any shown. The learned counsel has only referred to prescription slip dated 4.10.2010 (AnnexureR.2/1) of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana in which it is merely mentioned that Saurav Verma was admitted in PGI and his last follow-up is of 26.4.2010. He admittedly is not an indoor patient at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Even otherwise, the injured in terms of Annexure-P.4 had left PGI on 9.5.2010 and there is no record from 9.5.2010 till 4.10.2010 when the injured Saurav Verma went to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and his prescription (Annexure-R.2/1) was recorded. Saurav Verma injured, therefore, is not hospitalized. The petitioner is in custody since 20.4.2010 for the last more than 11 months. The trial in the case has not made any progress. Till date no witness has been examined. The prosecution is to establish and prove its case by leading evidence. The trial in the case is likely to take time.
5. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar shall be admitted to bail.

The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.



Geek Upd8 - Law Reporter: Bail - Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder - Accused is in custody for last more than 11 months - No witness examined till date - Trial likely to take time - Injured is not an indoor patient - Bail granted
Bail - Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder - Accused is in custody for last more than 11 months - No witness examined till date - Trial likely to take time - Injured is not an indoor patient - Bail granted
Geek Upd8 - Law Reporter
Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share. STEP 2: Click the link you shared to unlock Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy