Smt. Hafijan v. State Of Haryana

Crl. Misc. No. M-884 of 2018 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-884 of 2018 Date of Decision : February 01, 2018 Hafijan .............................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana............................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL ...

Present:

Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok K. Chaudhry, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

...

LISA GILL, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 140 dated 14.10.2017 under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 325, 506 and 326 (added later on) IPC registered at Women Police Station, Mewat, District Nuh.

It is submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant and has been unnecessarily involved and falsely implicated in the above-said FIR. The incident mentioned in the FIR is of 05.10.2017 whereas the FIR has been registered after considerable delay on 14.10.2017. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted an axe blow on the right foot of the complainant on 05.10.2017. As per the Medico Legal Report dated 05.10.2017 produced in Court by the learned counsel for the State the complainant suffered four injuries and one of them being an incised wound on her left foot. The injury Rupinder Kaur 2018.02.03 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-884 of 2018 [ 2 ] is mentioned to be bone deep. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that injury mentioned in the FIR is on the right foot whereas it is found on the left foot as per the MLR reflects the falsity of the case is untenable, hence rejected. There are specific allegations against the petitioner including the injury caused with an axe on the person of the complainant.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to afford the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Petition is dismissed.

None of the observations made here-in-above shall be construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no bearing on trial.

( LISA GILL ) 01.02.2018 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No Rupinder Kaur 2018.02.03 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document