Manjit v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.02.2019 Manjit ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:
Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondent -State.
*** Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.650 dated 02.10.2018 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 342, 365, 367, 506 IPC at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. The petitioner and complainant are of the same age group and are students of same coaching academy. There was minor scuffle between the boys and it was not a case of kidnapping. No offence is made out under Sections 365 and 367 IPC. The alleged incident took place on 28.09.2018 whereas the matter was reported to the Police on 01.10.2018 and FIR was registered on 02.10.2018. Learned counsel further submits that there is an unexplained delay of three days in lodging of the FIR. Even the medical examination of the complainant was got conducted on 01.10.2018 i.e. after a period of three days of alleged occurrence. As per
.....
MLR, there are three injuries on the person of the complainant and all are simple in nature. The incident occurred at a public place but no independent witness was joined. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Rajnesh Kumar, has been released on interim bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed in CRM-M No.55837 of 2018. Another co-accused, namely, Jaswinder @ Jassu has been released on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2019 passed in CRM-M No.2096 of 2019. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court.
Learned State counsel has opposed grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was member of unlawful assembly and all the accused assembled with common intention and abducted complainant-Deepak with an intention to confine him wrongfully and to cause grievous hurt. Not only the accused persons caused injuries but threatened the complainant to death. Learned State counsel further submits that the custody period is also very less as the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2018. Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner may influence the witnesses in case, he is released on regular bail. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.
As per allegations levelled in the FIR, complainant-Deepak was de-boarded by the petitioner and other accused from a running bus and thereafter, they committed the offence by taking him to a room. The
.....
petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to him. Some of the accused still remain to be arrested. Allegations of giving beatings are against accused Parveen, Leela and Manjeet. The complainant was medico-legally examined. Three injuries were found on the person of the complainant and the same have been attributed to said three accused. The petitioner cannot claim parity with his co-accused Jaswinder @ Jassu, who has been released on regular bail by this Court.
Keeping in view the role of the petitioner and the custody period, no ground is made out to release the petitioner on regular bail. Dismissed.
21.02.2019 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No