SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jamshed vs State Of Haryana on 3 May, 2018

CRM-M-17131 of 2018(OM) 1

CRM-M-17131 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: 03.05.2018

Jamshed …… Petitioner

State of Haryana …… Respondent

Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh K. Ambavta, AAG., Haryana.

LISA GILL, J (Oral).

Petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.

47, dated 13.03.2018, under Sections 323, 354, 452 IPC, registered at Police

Station Sohna, District Gurugram.

As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner came to the

complainant’s house on 12.03.2018 at 12.00 noon, caught hold of the

complainant from her hair, slapped her and tried to misbehave with her. It is

alleged that when the complainant raised a hue and cry, two of her

neighbours came to the spot and she was saved. Abovesaid FIR was

registered on these allegations on the next day i.e. 13.03.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case primarily due to party faction in the

area. There is an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, which shows that

the entire story has been concocted. Moreover, a bare reading of the FIR

would reflect that even if allegations for the sake of arguments are taken to

be correct, at best it is an attempt to misbehave on the part of the petitioner.

It is thus debatable whether Section 354 IPC is attracted in this situation. It

1 of 2
06-05-2018 05:00:38 :::
CRM-M-17131 of 2018(OM) 2

is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per the Medico Legal Report dated 12.03.2018, available on

the police file, three injuries are mentioned i.e. a mild reddish abrasion on

the left cheek, complaint of pain in the scalp and complaint of pain on the

cheek. FIR in respect to the alleged incident which took place on 12.03.2018

was registered on 13.03.2018.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Satpal,

verifies that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. There

are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner is likely to

abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true

facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but

without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this petition is allowed.

In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he be released on bail to

the satisfaction of the Arresting/investigating Officer. The petitioner shall

join investigation as and when called upon to do so. Petitioner shall comply

with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove

shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are

solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

03.05.2018 Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.

2 of 2
06-05-2018 05:00:39 :::

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