Raj Kapoor v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-1184-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH * * * CRM-M-1184-2021 Decided on : 14th January, 2021 Raj Kapoor Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN * * *

Present:

Mr. Vijay Pratap, Advocate for Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

* * * Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) 1.

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2.

This is a petition for grant of bail in FIR No.818, dated 29.10.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 34 (Section 324 deleted and Section 326 added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal. 3.

The FIR was at the instance of Chander Shekar @ Chander. It was stated that on 26.10.2020 at around 8:30 P.M. when he was returning from Red Rock Gym, Karnal, on the way Raja and Sachin stopped him and snatched his phone and left the spot threatening to kill. The complainant called his brother in lawShubham and told about the incident, who along with the complainant came to Anand Vihar. When Shubham and complainant were talking to each other, Raja and Raju @ Raj PANKAJ BAWEJA 2021.01.13 23:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-1184-2021 Kapoor (petitioner) along with Sachin came and attacked them. Raju gave brick blow on the chest of the complainant and Sachin gave kick blow to Shubham.

4.

Mr. Vijay Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2020; no recovery is to be made and the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature.

5.

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from HC Jitender, submits that challan has yet not been presented. It is further submitted that the accused came together and inflicted injuries to the complainant. 6.

Considering the fact that injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature; petitioner is not involved in any other case; no recovery is to be made and conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

[AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE 14th January, 2021 pankaj baweja Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

Yes PANKAJ BAWEJA 2021.01.13 23:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh