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


Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab - CRM-30114-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3854 (7 July 2006)

Crl.M.No. 30114 M OF 2006.


Sanjeev Kumar vs State of Punjab

Present : Ms.Upasana Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

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


The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.208, dated 10.11.2005, registered under Section 307 of the IPC, and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana.

As per the allegations, in the FIR, during marriage celebrations, the petitioner is alleged to have fired a shot from his double barrel gun. The pellets hit the two injured on their thighs.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 307 of the IPC has been wrongly invoked, as the gun went off accidentally and, therefore, at best, an offence under Section 326 of the IPC would be made out. It is further contended that the petitioner has been behind bars since 28.3.2006 and as investigation is complete and challan has been filed, the petitioner be released on bail.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that as the gun shot, fired by the petitioner, caused injuries to two ladies, the concession of bail be denied to the petitioner.

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

The petitioner fired a gun shot, during marriage celebrations.

The pellets hit and injured two girl dancers. The injured did not suffer any permanent disability and have fully recovered. They were discharged from Crl.Misc.No.30114.M of 2006 : 2 :

hospital within a fortnight of the incident. The investigation has concluded with the filing of the challan. Counsel for the respondent has not expressed any apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner 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, Ludhiana.

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


July 14, 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.