Sandeep Alias Lilu v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 28.02.2023 Sandeep @ Lilu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Azad.

Mr. S.S.Mor, Advocate, for the complainant.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.72, dated 07.02.2021, Police Station Meham, District Rohtak, under Sections 148, 323, 325, 307, 506, 149 IPC.

2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the accused alongwith coaccused had inflicted injuries to Rajinder, who happens to be related to the petitioner being real uncle (chacha) of the petitioner. The injured is aged about 70 years and had sustained as many as 8 injuries. On 31.5.2022, this Court while noticing that the parties are closely related and there are chances of compromise, had passed the following order:

"During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case pertaining to a dispute between two brothers

- 2 - and that the complainant Rajinder is real brother of accused Prem and that the other accused are nephews of the complainant. It has been submitted that there could be some chances of an amicable settlement and that he shall seek definite instructions from his client for compensating the complainant handsomely.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has offered to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to which learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the said amount is too less given the fact that the complainant, who is aged about 70 years, had been inflicted 8 injuries.

This Court does find that there could be possibility of an amicable settlement. In order to enable the parties to work out some amicable settlement, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

List again on 20.10.2022.

The parties may make efforts for working out some amicable settlement."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has today informed that the parties have amicably resolved their issues and that the complainant does not have any objection for grant of bail.

4.

Mr. S.S.Mor, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant has endorsed the factum of compromise.

5.

Learned State counsel has however, opposed the petition on the ground that it is a serious case wherein as many as 8 injuries were inflicted to a 70 years old person, out of which 2 have been declared dangerous to life and 3 are grievous in nature. It has further been submitted that the weapon of offence has also been recovered from the petitioner. Learned State counsel has however, informed that the petitioner has otherwise been behind bars for the last 1 year and 3

- 3 - months and that the remaining 4 co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail. It has been informed that charges are yet to be framed and as many as 17 PWs have been cited. It has also been informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in one more case.

6.

This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7.

It is no doubt correct that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against him of having inflicted injuries to the complainant along with co-accused. Some of the injuries have been declared as grievous injuries and have also been opined to dangerous to life. However, parties are stated to be closely related and the matter has been amicably resolved amognst the parties as is admitted by learned counsel for the complainant. The petitioner otherwise has been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year and 3 months. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as trial has not even commenced till date as charges have have not been framed so far. Other 4 co-accused are stated to be on bail. In these circumstances, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 28.02.