Dismissed

Tasim v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2018CRM-M/28400/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a second petition for anticipatory bail. The court found no grounds to entertain the application as there were no changes in circumstances following the dismissal of the earlier bail application on 05.07.2018.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed as it was not maintainable due to lack of change in circumstances.

Tasim Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM-M No.28400 of 2018 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.28400 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on: 16.07.2018

Tasim

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

¶11

Present : Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

¶13

CRM-23921-2018

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Allowed as prayed for.

¶16

The order dated 05.07.2018 is taken on record as Annexure

¶17

P6.

¶18

CRM-M-28400-2018

¶19

Prayer in this second petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.2 dated 11.01.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶20

The first bail application of the petitioner i.e. CRM-M No.27489 of 2018, was dismissed on 05.07.2018 by passing the following order:-

¶21

“ After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner finding that the Court is not inclined to grant

¶22

Mohd. Yakub 2018.07.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M No.28400 of 2018 (O&M) 2

¶24

any relief of bail, seeks permission to withdraw this petition.

¶25

Dismissed as withdrawn. ”

¶26

Notice of motion.

¶27

Mr. Himmat Singh, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent while Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, who is present in the Court, has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is attributed an injury on the forehead of the wife of the complainant namely Rubina. It is further submitted that though in the FIR, the complainant – Jahangir son of Akbar has stated that the petitioner has given a lathi blow on the left eye of his wife, however, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is no specific attribution to the petitioner by injured – Rubina. It is further submitted that since this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court, therefore, the second application for anticipatory bail is maintainable.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner of the petitioner is not required as it will be seen only during the course of trial as to whether the petitioner was attributed any injury or not. It is further submitted that in the statement of the complainant, he has tried to rope in number of persons.

¶30

In reply, counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the second bail application of the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no change of

¶31

Mohd. Yakub 2018.07.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CRM-M No.28400 of 2018 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

circumstances. It is further submitted that as per the MLR of injured – Rubina, the following injury was found:-

¶35

“ Lacerated wound of size 3 cm x 0.8 cm present on the left frontal region of skull. Color is pinkish. Surgeon opinion. ”

¶36

Counsel for the complainant has, thus, submitted that the injury, which is sustained by injured – Rubina is duly corroborated from the medical evidence and as per the FIR, the petitioner was attributed this injury.

¶37

Counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the regular bail of the co-accused Salim has already been dismissed and as per the allegation, the petitioner was called on his asking and number of persons, forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and thrashed the entire family members including the ladies, who received injuries and later on, they were medico legally examined. It is further submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 148, 149, 320, 452 and 506 IPC, however, during the investigation and on the basis of the medical opinion, Sections 325 and 307 IPC was also added.

¶38

Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the petitioner is son of the main accused – Salim, who bail application has already been dismissed and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶39

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no ground to entertain the second application of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail as the earlier one was dismissed on 05.07.2018 and there are no change in the circumstances.

¶40

Mohd. Yakub 2018.07.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

CRM-M No.28400 of 2018 (O&M)

¶42

¶43

Dismissed.

¶44

16.07.2018 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) yakub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶45

Mohd. Yakub 2018.07.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Tasim v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasim v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ajit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinder Vs State of Punjab