The Court dismissed regular bail petitions filed by two individuals registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Rejecting arguments regarding self-defense and aggression, the Judge noted the use of deadly weapons and severe injuries, concluding bail was not warranted.
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- 2519 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. M-2519 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 4th , 2012
Arun Nagar .... Petitioner Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-6671 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 4th , 2012
Naresh .... 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. S.N. Gaur, Advocate, and Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
By way of the above mentioned two petitions, Arun Nagar and Naresh seek regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 75 dated 7.5.2011 at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad for an offence
Crl. Misc. No.M- 2519 of 2012
2
punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 3.6.2011. They have submitted that it is a case with version and cross version in which admittedly, both the parties have suffered injuries. According to them, though the injury attributed to the petitioner, Arun Nagar has been caused by him with an axe to Balraj on account of which the latter lost his eye, yet the question to be decided at the trial would be as to which party is the aggressor. They have further submitted that in an enquiry entrusted to CIA by Commissioner of Police, it was found that the complainant party was aggressor. In this regard, he has referred me to Annexure P2 placed in Criminal Misc. No.M-6671 of 2012. They have further submitted that as the injuries were more on the other side, FIR was recorded on their version and the petitioners have been arrested. They have further submitted that now the petitioners have filed a private complaint, which is pending.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that Balraj remained hospitalized for 14 days while the other one named, Sheoraj Nagar remained hospitalized for one month and sixteen days on account of the injuries suffered in the occurrence. He has submitted that Naresh, the petitioner gave a kulhari blow on the head of Sheoraj Nagar, which is the injury attracting the provisions of section 307 IPC. He has further submitted that the material witnesses are yet to be examined at the trial.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted on the
Crl. Misc. No.M- 2519 of 2012
3
other hand that the injuries on the person of the complainant and others are graver. He has further submitted that the medical documents are not placed on record by the petitioners and they have certainly kept back their MLRs which show that there is no comparison in the injuries of the two sides.
In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the injury of Sheoraj Nagar, which attracted section 307 IPC is attributed to two persons, namely, Naresh and Naveen. They have submitted that as the injury is only one, it cannot be believed that the same was caused by two persons.
Learned counsel for the complainant has put on record the discharge summaries of Balraj and Sheoraj Nagar, which show that extensive damage to the skull bones has been done to the two injured. Injury No.1 of Sheoraj Nagar as is available in Annexure P5 at page 37 in Criminal Misc. No.M-6671 of 2012, cannot be said to be one injury. The description of the injury is missing in the document which only mentions that fresh blood was oozing from occipital aspect of skull. The doctor did not try to ascertain if there was one injury or two injuries and looking to the seriousness of the injury, the patient was referred to better hospital.
By the mere fact that the occurrence has taken place in the street outside the house of the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that the other party is aggressor. As is the version of the complainant, the occurrence took place when Balraj, Sheoraj Nagar and others were going to the police station and they found the assailants near the house of Onkar.
Looking to the fact that most deadly weapons have been used
Crl. Misc. No.M- 2519 of 2012
4
in this case and blows have been given on the most vital organs of the body, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to bail. The petitions are, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
April 4th , 2012 som
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, who are in custody facing serious charges, are entitled to bail given the gravity of injuries and deadly weapons used.
Whether the altercation circumstances distinguish the petitioner as the aggressor deserving bail.
Whether the presence of a private complaint impacts the bail application under the Impugned order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arun Nagar
Naresh
State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
