SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Kuldeep Singh @ Pipi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-25436 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

The cause of death and the specific role attributed to the accused are crucial factors in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to joining the investigation within two weeks, based on the cause of death mentioned in the PMR and the lack of specific role attributed to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 323, 341, 506, 147, 149 IPC, where the cause of death was stated as 'cardiac arrest' and no specific role was attributed to the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the cause of death and lack of specific role attributed to the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving serious charges and the cause of death being 'cardiac arrest'.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the cause of death and lack of specific role attributed to the petitioner as key factors in granting anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The petition seeking anticipatory bail was allowed, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation within two weeks.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2. This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in case of FIR No.42, dated 10th March, 2020, under Sections 302, 323, 341, 506, 147, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Lalru, District SAS Nagar.

3. During the inquiry Section 302 IPC was deleted and Section 304 was added.

4. The FIR was at the behest of Gurtej Singh. It was stated that on 10th March, 2020 at about 9.45 AM, the complainant alongwith his uncle was going to their fields. At that time, Joginger Singh alongwith Kuldeep Singh (petitioner), Kulvir Singh, Baljinder Singh, Mandeep Singh and Jashanpreet Singh were standing in the street having colours in their hands and the accused started throwing colours on them. When objected, they started beatings. Joginder Singh raised a lalkara, the father of the complainant reached at the spot, he was dragged and given fist blows on his chest, stomach and head. The father of the complainant was got admitted in Indus Hospital where he died.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the PMR there were no external injuries and the cause of the death was 'cardiac arrest'.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that initially cancellation report was proposed which was not accepted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali. On a subsequent application given by the complainant, the matter was re-investigated, Section 302 IPC was deleted and Section 304 IPC was added. She is not in a position to dispute that as per PMR the cause of death was 'cardiac arrest'. The relevant portion of the report is quoted below.

“In our final opinion the immediate cause of death is acute myocardial infarction with sudden cardiac arrest which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.”

7. There is no specific role attributed to the petitioner-Kuldeep Singh. The allegations are that fist blows and kicks were given to the father of the complainant. There were no external injury mark.

8. Considering the cause of death as mentioned in the PMR, the petitioner-Kuldeep Singh is granted anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation within two weeks. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He is directed to join investigation as and when called for. He shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

9. The petition is allowed.

10. In case of failure of the petitioner to join the investigation, the State would be at liberty to file an application for recalling of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top