The High Court allowed a regular bail petition filed by Jamil in a case involving sections 307, 323, 324, 326, and 506 of the IPC. The court directed his release on a personal bond with one surety.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-19184 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-19184 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 5th , 2012
Jamil
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate, for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Jamil, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.226 dated 14.11.2010 at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat for an offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the last order passed in the case and has submitted that on the last date of hearing, the petition was adjourned for today for the reason that the complainant, who had been appearing before the trial court on every date of hearing could not be examined for one reason or the other and if
Crl. Misc. No.M-19184 of 2011
2
the petition was allowed, there would be chances of tampering with the evidence. The case was adjourned with the direction to learned trial court to examine the complainant without any further delay. He has submitted that now the complainant stands examined in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even the petitioner had suffered two injuries in the occurrence and his injury No. 2 was declared grievous by the doctors. According to him, therefore, the court has to decide in this case as to which party is the aggressor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.1.2011. According to him, despite the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 1-1/2 years, the trial is not over.
Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the other material witnesses are yet to be examined in this case and bail may be allowed to the petitioner only after the examination of those witnesses. It is further contended that though, injury No. 2 of the petitioner Jamil was found to be grievous, yet the said injury could be self suffered. According to him, both the injuries on Abdul Gaffar were declared dangerous to life and, therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed bail.
Besides the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 1-1/2 years in this case, he also has been in receipt of a grievous hurt. Whether this grievous hurt was self suffered by the petitioner or not would be decided at the trial. It is pertinent to note that Abdul Gaffar was examined medically on 27.10.2010 and a copy of his MLR is at Annexure P5. The first two injuries on his person, which were on his
Crl. Misc. No.M-19184 of 2011
3
head are reported to be lacerated wounds. The petitioner is alleged to have given a blow to Abdul Gaffar with an axe.
In this view of the matter, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail during the trial. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mewat.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
July 5th , 2012 som
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving grievous hurt and dangerous injuries to the victim.
Jamil
State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
