Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Gajan Singh & another v. The State of Punjab - CRM-29199-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3573 (3 July 2006)

Crl.M.No. 29199 M OF 2006.


Gajan Singh & another vs State of Punjab Present : Mr.Harkanwar Singh, Advocate,

for Mr.PPS Duggal, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab.


The petitioners seek grant of regular bail in case FIR No.35, dated 2.2.2006, registered under Sections 307/148/149 of the IPC, and Sections 25/54/27/59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that even as per the averments in the FIR, no injury is attributed to the petitioners. They are stated to be armed with dangs which, even as per the averments in the FIR, they did not use. One Macchi Singh allegedly fired from a .12 bore single barrel gun. It is further contended that as the petitioners have been behind bars since 24.2.2006, they should be released on bail.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that though the petitioners were armed with dangs and did not cause any injuries, they were part of an unlawful assembly and, therefore, should not be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As noticed herein above, the petitioners were armed with dangs but as per the averments in the FIR, they did not inflict any injuries. Infact, there is no averment in the FIR that they used the dangs. The injuries were Crl.Misc.No.29199.M of 2006 : 2 :

inflicted by one Macchi Singh, who fired a shot from a .12 bore single barrel gun. The petitioners have been behind bars since 24.2.2006, and as the challan has been presented, further incarceration of the petitioners is unwarranted. Counsel for the respondent has not expressed any apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioners would tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner subvert the process of trial.

Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur.

Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion, on the merits of the controversy.


July 10, 2006. JUDGE



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.