AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Avtar Singh and Sukhdeep Singh, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 295 -A, 323, 382, 506 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 50, dated 22.6.2013, registered at Police Station, Nurmahal, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mischief of Section 295 -A, IPC, is not attracted since petitioner No. 1, Avtar Singh, is a baptized Sikh; that due to political vendetta, the petitioners have been implicated in the present case; that in the latter part of the FIR, name of petitioner No. 2, Sukhdeep Singh, has emerged and that too with an intention to widen the array of the accused his name has figured; and that there was no reason for the petitioners to have snatched the gold chain of the complainant since petitioner No. 1 is an income -tax assessee and paying hefty tax. On the basis of the above averments, he has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State, assisted by Mohd. Gulzar, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that the mischief of Section 295 -A, IPC, is clearly attracted from the act of the petitioners since they have not only pulled out the hair of the complainant, but they also pulled him down, caught hold of his beard and caused multiple injuries by means of fist blows. Even the turban of the complainant was detached from his head. It has also been argued that the complainant was medico legally examined within a short span and the FIR was also lodged within two hours of the occurrence. Therefore, there cannot be any reason on the part of the complainant to have falsely reported the matter to the police.

(3.) EVEN if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to have committed the offence punishable under Section 295 -A, IPC, but still the allegations with regard to assault on the complainant and pulling out his hair from head and beard and thereafter putting him on the ground and causing injuries do not permit this Court to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. The complainant has specifically stated in his report to the police that the petitioners even intimidated him and, therefore, the mischief of Section 506, IPC, was also attracted. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and, as such, the present petition sans merit and the same is dismissed.