JOGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Joga Singh, son of Karam Singh, resident of village Burj, Police Station, Jhabal, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, and 452 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 69, dated 3.7.2011, registered at Police Station, Jhabhal, District Tarn Taran.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of version and cross-version. The petitioner's side had also received injuries in the same occurrence.

(3.) The opposite party has been charged under Section 447 IPC, which clearly spell out that the opposite party was the aggressor. He further contends that in compliance of the interim direction issued by this Court vide order dated 28.8.2014, the petitioner did join the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, assisted by counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2, submits that though interim directions were issued on 28.8.2014, yet the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender on 27.10.2014 by learned Area Judicial Magistrate. He further submits that on 18.11.2014, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer without disclosing the fact that he was declared as a proclaimed offender on 27.10.2014. He further submits that no intimation was received from learned Area Judicial Magistrate with regard to declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, therefore, he was joined in the investigation. He further submits that an injury attracting the mischief of Section 326, IPC, by means of Barchi has been attributed to the petitioner, on the person of Gurmej Singh (injured). He further submits that which party was aggressor, would be a moot point during the course of trial. At this stage it is sufficient to say that the petitioner has been attributed the injury attracting the mischief under Section 326, IPC, and, hence, it is not a case where anticipatory bail should be granted to him.