NAVNEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant 2 nd petition for the grant of anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, are that on 28.7.2012 at around 12.30 PM, as soon as, complainant Vikram Kumar son of Sham Lal (for brevity "the complainant") was present near Dharamkanta of Tempo Union, Dera Bassi (place of occurrence), in the meantime, the petitioner and his other co-accused armed with sticks and swords came on two motorcycles from backside. They stopped their motorcycles in front of the complainant. It was alleged that thereafter the complainant felled on the ground after receipt of sword blow from Sony accused. While he was lying on the ground, the remaining accused also caused injuries to him with sticks on his back. In the wake of alarm raised by the complainant, PW Madan Lal son of Prabhu Ram reached the spot and on seeing him, all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. Madan Lal removed the complainant in an injured condition and was admitted in the hospital, where the doctor found multiple injuries, including the grievous injuries on his person caused by the accused. In the background of these allegations and on the basis of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.131 dated 29.7.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 326, 323, 324 and 341 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

(2.) Having exercised and lost his right before the Additional Sessions Judge, the 1 st petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner and others was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 15.2.2013 in CRM No.M-2358 of 2013 and now he has moved the instant 2 nd petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present 2 nd petition for anticipatory bail in this context.