AMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner stated that complainant Pushpinder Singh has effected compromise and has furnished affidavit Annexure P/3 regarding the compromise. During the course of arguments, it was put to counsel for the Petitioner if Pushpinder Singh is the only injured person in the occurrence and the counsel replied in the affirmative. However, perusal of the FIR Annexure P/1 reveals that Vinod Kumar alias Sonu and his wife Mandeep were also caused injuries in the same occurrence. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the Petitioner came up with a strange and novel argument that Vinod Kumar alias Sonu and his wife Mandeep did not lodge any FIR. However, more than one FIR was not required to be lodged regarding the same occurrence. Counsel for the Petitioner then came out with the submission that Vinod Kumar alias Sonu and Mandeep were not even examined as witnesses during investigation by recording their statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure However, learned State counsel after seeking instructions from HC Narinder Singh stated that Sonu alias Vinod Kumar as well as his wife Mandeep have been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses. It is, thus, apparent that counsel for the Petitioner has made incorrect submissions regarding material facts put to him during the course of arguments.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage seeks permission to withdraw the instant bail petition.