Virender v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Decided on: 15.07.2019 Virender ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.312 dated 27.07.2016, for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not maintaining good health and he is in custody since 04.08.2016. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the medical report submitted by way of an affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail - I, Hisar, in which the following opinion has been given:- "This is certified that as per the medical record
available at Central Jail-1, Hisar. Above said prisoner Virender s/o Khajan Singh (55 Yrs - Male) is follow up case of Pain at Inguinal region, Scrotum and Abdomen on & off for which he has been sending to G.H. Hisar for follow up regularly. He was adviced USG Inguino-Scrotal region and USG Impression was No typcal Pathology seen in both Inguinal region on dated 06 April 2019. Treatment was given by concerned expert at G.H. Hisar. He is hemodynamically stable at present."
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner along with 20 other co-accused had caused fatal injuries to deceased Baljit and Dalbir. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the FIR to argue that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and subsequently, when the statement of the injured/eye-witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, even then no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the statement of PW3, to support his argument. It is further submitted that this witness has specifically stated that the incident has taken place due to the enmity regarding the election of Sarpanch as the complainant party did not cast their vote in favour of one Joginder.
It is also submitted that the petitioner is not related to said Joginder and as per this witness, the petitioner is residing next door to the house of the complainant and in the light of the crossexamination of PW3, wherein he has stated that even on a previous occasion, the case is pending against the family of Khajan i.e. the father of the petitioner for causing injuries to the witnesses in the present case, and therefore, the defence of false implication is there.
examined and after recording the examination-in-chief of the PW-4, the application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning some additional accused, which was partly allowed and one accused was summoned and both the sides have filed the revision petitions challenging the said order.
Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the statement of PW4 - Sunita, who has stated that Joginder is the main conspirator behind this incident and therefore, the involvement of the petitioner is yet to be decided on the basis of the entire evidence. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Surjit Singh, assisted by counsel for the complainant has not disputed the factual position as per statement of PW-3 and PW-4 and affidavit of Medical Officer but opposed the prayer for bail.
automatically.
(ii) He will not try to influence any of the prosecution witness and will not enter the village, where the complainant/witnesses are residing and it will be open for the prosecution to move an application in case the petitioners are found misusing the concession of regular bail.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 15.07.2019 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No