SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.Misc. M 9679 Of 2014 vs State Of Haryana on 18 July, 2014

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cr.Misc. M 9679 Of 2014 vs State Of Haryana on 18 July, 2014


Cr.Misc. M 9679 of 2014

Date of decision:- 18.7.2014




State of Haryana


Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate. Mr. RD Sharma, DAG, Hry

Mr. Naveen Bhsardwaj, Advocate.


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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation