Lakhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 2 Dec 2010 Criminal M. No. 32311-M of 2010
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal M. No. 32311-M of 2010

Hon'ble Bench

Jaswant Singh, J

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307, 323, 324, 326, 34

Judgement Text

Translate:

Jaswant Singh, J.@mdashPrayer u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 48 dated 6.7.2010 under

Sections 307/326/324/323/34 IPC, P.S Joga, District Mansa.

2. As per allegations levelled by Gurdev Singh, his nephew Satnam Singh was being encouraged to have drugs in the company of the Petitioner.

On the day of occurrence, Satnam Singh was allegedly travelling on a motorcycle along with Petitioner and his father Roop Singh. On being asked

to let go Satnam Singh, it is averred that it was Satnam Singh, who had instigated the Petitioner and his father to inflict injuries to his brother Jagdev

Singh. It is alleged that Petitioner-Lakhwinder Singh and his father Roop Singh were armed with kirpans and they inflicted four injuries on the

person of Jagdev-nephew of complainant-Gurdev Singh.

3. Learned Counsel submits that two injuries attributed to the Petitioner i.e. on the head and thumb were opined to be simple in nature. Further

submits that in the present case, investigations are over and challan presented and the Petitioner is in custody since 26.7.2010. It is also contended

that there is a cross version also at the instance of Roop Singh, who has suffered injuries on his eye at the hands of Jagdev Singh.

4. Learned state counsel, on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh, concedes that the challan has been presented and charges have been framed. He

also concedes that the Petitioner is in custody since 26.7.2010. He further submits that the injured Jagdev Singh had remained in hospital for 17

days.

5. Without commenting upon merit of the case and taking into account the custody period and the fact that the trial is likely to take sufficient time to

conclude, I find that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Petitioner in custody any longer.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Mansa.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Flags Digital Arrest Scams
Oct
27
2025

Story

Supreme Court Flags Digital Arrest Scams
Read More
Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dogs Case:
Oct
27
2025

Story

Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dogs Case:
Read More