Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2011

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.278 dated 7.10.2010 under Sections 452, 323, 302 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. The FIR is registered at the instance of Phool Singh, who is alleged to be the eye-witness of the incident in which he has stated that he was present at home along with his two sons and wife when the assailants entered his house. He has alleged that at that time Harinder Mohan came along with Ishu on his motorcycle. He exhorted the other accused to finish Jasbir and at the same time, he picked up a wooden log and gave a blow on the head of his wife Malo Devi and gave a blow on his right shoulder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case because had he caused the injury on the head of Malo Devi and on the shoulder of Phool Singh as stated by him in the FIR then there has to be some medical evidence in that regard but there is no Medico Legal Report of the said injured. He further submits that there is no other attribution to CRM-M-13081of 2011 - 2 – him except for Lalkara and since his presence is doubtful on the spot because of the aforesaid circumstance, he has been illegally detained in the judicial custody. In reply, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that though there is no MLR of the injured Malo Devi and Phool Singh on record but she has stated in her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Harinder Mohan had also caused injury to one Shekhar which otherwise is not mentioned by Phool Singh, the author of the FIR. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. JULY 22, 2011 Vivek (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE