Shailender v. State Of Haryana

CRM M-7625 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM M-7625 of 2018 Date of decision : 27.02.2018 Shailender ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG Haryana.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under sections 186, 323, 332, 353, 506, 34 IPC and section 3 of the Haryana Medicare Services Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2009 vide FIR No. 20 dated 27.01.2018 at police station Sadar Jind. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence, whatsoever, has been committed by the petitioner. According to him, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Thus, he deserves the concession of bail. Prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel on the ground that allegations against the petitioners are serious.

FIR was lodged on the complaint of Dr. Rajesh Bhola, MMO, CHC Kandela. He alleged on 25.01.2018 he was attending the meeting with regard to 'National Pulse Polio Program' at CHC Kandela. When the meeting was about to conclude at that time, Shailender (petitioner herein) Ajay Kumar 2018.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-7625 of 2018 alongwith his 4-5 accomplices reached there. Without his permission, he started addressing the employees present in the meeting and leveled false allegations on him. Thereafter, complainant alongwith other medical officers left the place of meeting. However, Shailender alongwith his other accomplices reached the office of complainant and started abusing him. When he objected to his behavior, he was threatened and slapped by the petitioner while discharging his official duty. In my considered view petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Petitioner alongwith other accused has threatened and assaulted the complainant while he was attending the meeting in official capacity. The entire incident has also been video-graphed.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court. Petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

February 27, 2018 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Ajay Kumar 2018.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document