Punjab-Haryana High Court Cr.Misc. M 9679 Of 2014 vs State Of Haryana on 18 July, 2014
Cr.Misc. M 9679 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Misc. M 9679 of 2014
Date of decision:- 18.7.2014
Dharampal
Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana
Respondent
Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate. Mr. RD Sharma, DAG, Hry
Mr. Naveen Bhsardwaj, Advocate.
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioner along with others is alleged to have assaulted complainant Sanjay with a sharp edged weapon, resulting in fracture of his nasal bone.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and other family members have been involved in the case on account of earlier rivalry with the complainant. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that it is not a case of custodial interrogation.
I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the medical evidence gathered during the course of investigation. No doubt the petitioner had allegedly assaulted the complainant with a sharp edged weapon but the fracture suffered by the complainant is opined to be an injury with a blunt weapon. The statement of the victim specifically indicts the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the co- accused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of regular bail. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and Mann Tapindar Singh
2014.07.21 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Cr.Misc. M 9679 of 2014 2 taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, I do not find it to be a case where extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The circumstances may constitute a good ground for grant of regular bail. Dismissed. However, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the investigating officer or surrenders before the Illaqa Magistrate within a period of one week and submit an application for regular bail, the said application will be decided expeditiously, taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anr (Cr. Appeal 1277 of 2014 decided on 2.7.2014) and in accordance with the provisions of Section 41(1)(b)(ii)(a to e) Cr.P.C. July 18 ,2014 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Mann Tapindar Singh
2014.07.21 10:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
