AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dtd. 29/1/2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-3253-2024 arising out of FIR No.175 dtd. 8/7/2022 under Ss. 308/325/323/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station PS Jandiala, District Amritsar, for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2.

(2.) The respondent No.2, Dalbir Singh was granted regular bail in FIR(supra) vide order dtd. 29/1/2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the coordinate bench of this Court. However, FIR No.175 dtd. 8/7/2022 under Ss. 308/325/323/506/34 of IPC was registered by petitioner at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, alleging that the respondent No.2 and other accused named in FIR(supra) attacked and suffered injuries to the petitioner and his father. Thereafter, present application is moved by petitioner seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent no.2, which was allowed vide impugned order dtd. 29/1/2024.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has suffered two injuries out of which injury no.1 which is lacerated wound on the head inflicted by Dalbir Singh(Respondent no.2) with spade which has been declared dangerous to life by medical board. The Radio diagnosis report of injury no.1 suffered by petitioner shows fracture of the right parietal, frontal and left parietal bone. The MLR of petitioner along with other medical record is annexed as Annexure P-3. Thereafter, in the aforesaid FIR offence under Sec. 308 of IPC has been added by investigation agency vide report dtd. 7/11/2023, and these facts have not been brought to the knowledge of this Court while granting regular bail to respondent no.2 vide order dtd. 29/1/2024 (Annexure P-1). Further, respondent no.2 had filed the first regular bail application before this Court which was listed on 7/12/2023 and learned counsel of petitioner appeared on that day and after he pointed out the injuries suffered by complainant/petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 1/3/2024. Thereafter, respondent no.2 withdrew his first bail and filed the second bail application which was listed on 29/1/2024 and was allowed on the same day. The present petitioner/complainant under the impression that the regular bail application of respondent no.2 is pending for 1/3/2024, could not check the cause list and therefore could not appear on 29/1/2024 to oppose the bail. Further, in the para no. 3 of order dtd. 29/1/2024, it was contended that grievous injury has been attributed to respondent No.2 and the fact that this injury had been declared dangerous to life by Medical Officer and there is fracture of right parietal, frontal and left parietal bone of the petitioner, was not disclosed. Respondent no. 2 after getting released is openly extending threats to the petitioner and his family members and he is pressurizing them to enter into compromise in the present case.