Aman v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : July 03, 2024 Aman ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present :

Mr. Gaurav Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 72 dated 18.2.2024, under Sections 148, 149,323,324,325,326,506 IPC, (Sections 325, 326 IPC, added later on), registered at Police Station Kaithal City, District Kaithal.

2.

On perusal of the FIR, it reflects that the petitioner along with other 8 to 10 persons caused multiple injuries to complainant Surender, with sticks/dandas, gandasi, and iron rods which resulted in four injuries to the complainant, and out of which, three are stated to be grievous in nature. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in asking for the relief of regular bail, submits that no specific role has been attributed to the present

-2petitioner, and rather it is a case of false implication. He further submits that only four injuries had been suffered by the complainant, whereas 8 to 10 persons attacked upon the complainant, which caused suspicion on the story put forth by the prosecution. He also submits that no recovery of weapon was effected from the petitioner, therefore, even as per the prosecution, he was empty handed on the spot. 4.

Learned State counsel, per contra, opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, and submits that the accused have caused four injuries to the complainant, on a trivial issue, as complainant was stopping them from drinking in front of his house. He further submits that the petitioner is involved in one more case, therefore, he does not deserve the relief of regular bail. He has also filed the custody certificate qua the petitioner, and the same is taken on record. The custody certificate reflects that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 3 months and 28 days, as on today. The learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him by ASI Jaipal, submits that final report has been filed on dated 10.5.2024, but the charges are yet to be framed, and the prosecution has cited total 18 witnesses in the final report.

5.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 4 months, and the trial is yet to begin, and no specific role is attributed to him, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to extend the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present

-3petition is allowed.

6.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds, and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 7.

However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petition only. ( KULDEEP TIWARI ) July 03, 2024 JUDGE 'tiwana'

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No