The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to three petitioners charged under Sections 148, 307 IPC and the Arms Act in a counter-FFR case noting investigation completion and lack of serious injury to the victim.
Petitioners ordered to release on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety each in 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-11614 of 2013 & Crl. Misc. No.M-14171 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 11614 of 2013
Date of decision. 28.05.2013
Samunder
....... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........ Respondent 2- Crl. Misc. No. M- 14171 of 2013 Date of decision. 28.05.2013 Narender and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:- Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Rajat Mor, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Paramjit Jhakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Crl. Misc. No.M-11614 of 2013 &
Crl. Misc. No.M-14171 of 2013
2
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Samunder, Narender and Shri Pal, the petitioners, by way of the above mentioned two petitions, have sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 963 dated 31.12.2012 at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 307 IPC read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case against the petitioners is a counter blast to the case registered by way of FIR No. 961 dated 30.12.2012 on the statement of Samunder, one of the petitioners. According to him, that case is for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. According to him, after 24 hours of registration of that FIR, Savitri wife of Surender Gujjar has lodged this FIR on a concocted version. According to him, no injury other than the one on the eyebrow of Surender Gujjar has been caused to the complainant or her husband. He has further submitted that even Narender, the petitioner did not fire a gun shot. According to him, as per the FIR when Vikram exhorted Narender to fire, Savitri asked
Crl. Misc. No.M-11614 of 2013 &
Crl. Misc. No.M-14171 of 2013
3
them not to fire and after this she locked herself in a room and called police and the assailants escaped.
Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners are the main accused in the case. According to him, gun shots were fired at the son of the complainant and, therefore, section 307 IPC is attracted to the case. Learned State counsel could not deny the fact that the only injury suffered by the husband of the complainant is on his eyebrow and that is suffered with the butt end of the gun.
It is not a disputed fact that FIR No. 961 was recorded on the statement of Samunder, one of the petitioners against Surender Gujjar and others for an offence punishable inter-alia under section 302 IPC. After 24 hours of lodging of that FIR, the present FIR has been lodged. Though there are allegations that the petitioners fired gun shots aiming at the son of the complainant, yet no injury has been caused to the son of the complainant.
It has to be seen at the trial as to whether any gun shot was fired aiming at the son of the complainant. This is a cross-version of the FIR lodged for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. The trial court after taking evidence would consider whether the offence punishable under
Crl. Misc. No.M-11614 of 2013 & Crl. Misc. No.M-14171 of 2013
4
section 307 IPC is made out or not. The petitioners are in custody and since the investigation is already over, no useful purpose would be served in detaining them in custody any longer. Hence, I find the petitioners to be entitled to bail. Hence, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hisar.
May 28, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, being main accused in a cross-FFR case with no serious injuries, should be granted bail after investigation is over.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samunder
Narender
Pal
State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
