Priyeranjan Alias Priya Ranjan v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 20.05.2025 PRIYERANJAN ALIAS PRIYA RANJAN ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

    ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 18.04.2024 353, 186, 323 IPC;

[307, 333 IPC and 3 of the Punjab Protection of Medicare Service (Prevention of Violence and Damage of Property Act), 2008 added later on] Model Town, Hoshiarpur no. 2), Mo 2.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that a verbal alteration took place between the petitioner and the complainant, who was working as a doctor in the dispensary, on account of medicines given to his mother by the complainant, being expired two months back. He submits that in fact on coming to know about the same, the

-2petitioner went to the complainant to verify and found that some unauthorized person was sitting in the medical store and giving medicines and when this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant, an altercation took place. He contends that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the complainant and the incident was recorded on the mobile of the petitioner. He further contends that the complainant himself was suffering from medical ailment and hypertension and due to the verbal altercation with the petitioner, he suffered cardiac problem, necessitating hospitalization, in which the petitioner has no concern. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2024, and after the completion of investigation challan has been presented and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Thus, prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the reply filed by the State has opposed the petition by arguing that the petitioner had attacked the complainant, who was discharging his duty as a doctor, as a result of which, he fell unconscious and was shifted to hospital for treatment. He contends that the act and conduct of the petitioner does not deserve any leniency, thus, prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the complainant was working as Senior Medical Officer, ESI Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where the mother of the petitioner was taking treatment and free medicines were supplied by the medical dispensary. As per the version, the petitioner had gone to the dispensary to enquire as to

-3why expired medicines had been given, but the situation got escalated leading to verbal alteration. From the record, no alleged injury is stated to have been attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence. The complainant, no doubt, remained admitted in the hospital on account of cardiac problem, but it is debatable at this stage as to whether the same happended on account of the act and conduct of the petitioner or due to the previous medical ailment of the complainant. Admittedly, challan has already been presented in Court and the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. The criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.

6.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 7.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 20.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No