Yogesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 13.12.2023 YOGESH KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 20.09.2023, the following order was passed :- Reply by way of affidavit of Varun Dahiya, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime, Gurugram on behalf of the respondentState has been filed. The same is taken on record. Prayer is for pre-arrest bail in FIR No.171 dated 11.11.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of IPC at Police Station Sohana, District Gurugram.
FIR came into being on the statement made by Bhim Singh son of Kanwar Singh, who claims himself to be an eye witness and alleged as under:- "To The SHO Sahib, Police Station Sadar Sohna, Gurgaon. Sir, it is requested that I Bhim Singh s/o Kanwar Singh is resident of Village Damdama Police Station Sadar Sohna Gurgaon. I work as a farmer in the village. We are two brothers and three sisters. Both of us brothers
and all three sisters are married. About 1 year ago, my brother Arjun had a fight with Rajan s/o Dhanpal, Jagat s/o Dhanpal and Ishwar s/o Jagat Singh over dogs. Regarding that rivalry, today on 10.11.2022 at around 10:14 pm. I was present of my house in Damdama and I got a call from Virender s/o Deshraj that there was a fight going on with your brother near the Bhumaya temple near the tradesman's house. As soon as I heard the call, I and my uncle Mukhram s/o Handu and Praveen s/o Hetram immediately reached
! "
#! $% %&
! "
#! $% %& ( )* !
+ + #! $% %
$"
#! , +
- %.
+
+
*
+ ++. +
+
(
*
%.
'+
& / '+
+ +%
%
%.
- .
+ +
%
+
* 0
+*
.
+%
%.
-+
'+
%.
+0 +
0+ %
&
& +++
+
-+
% +%
0+ %
&
+*
%
% ' %
%&
'+
0+ +
10 -
+
*
-0 +
! ,%
!! ' ) .
+ 2 +%
++ '+
! 3 +
+! $% %& % +%
+ %
+
+
&
+
+.
4
+
+.
4 & +.
4
15+.
6+
+.
47 ( 4 8
+
6
+.& 4
9!/ +
60+
1 % #+ +
+
5 +%
:
: + +%
.&
+%
+0
+% (
+
'+
! 3 +
+! $% %& +
+* &
+
+* : + +% +
-
+ 2 +%
,#6;:) $<'$
'+ = ,%
! 3 +
+! $% %&
-%
+
8+%
+
(9# ,#6;:) $<'$
& & 7
) +%
-
+
8# ' + +
&
%-+
%
++
++
+ + +%
+%%
+
<<4 #(<
%
6
- +%
+
- .
0
+ >7 + ) .
+* ::( ('<4$<# 7
'$'#
64'
$) &
8# 4 >
& & 7 + +
++
8# + ++
%
%
++
8#
+ 5%
+0
2 (
+ ' + +
&
%+*
+
-
0 +
+ +% 477 ) - + +
#%-+ > ) -
%
?
8+%
%
%
0
1
%-
+
+ + +
%.
@
+
! "
&
! "
& ( @ )* !
+ +
$"
/ 0 -
'+ )+
0
+
+ .
0+&
+
%
++
+
.
%
.
00
+%
-%
%
+& -
) &
.
%+--
%
+
%
-%
%
%
1
+
0
+
+ % *
*
+ -%
%
.
0
+
<0 '
%
+
%
% +
.
%- -
+
%
%
.
+
%
%&
0
++
+ +
+% - -
+ +
+ .
-
++ +! 0 6+ '
+
0 ).
-
%+
7ABC
+?
2.
Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from PSI Kuldeep submits that though the petitioner has joined investigation however danda is yet to be recovered.
On the inquiry of the Court as to how the danda alleged to be in possession of the petitioner would aid the investigation, State Counsel submits that the petitioner hit the deceased on legs with the said danda. 4.
From the allegations levelled in the FIR, the complainant claimed that :
"xx I saw Sandeep alias Sujan s/o Jagat Singh R/o Damdama, Anand s/o Jagat Singh R/o Damdama, Manoj alias Tooka s/o Shri Phire R/o Damdama and DJ wala Pawan R/o Bahalpa started beating my brother with iron rods and sticks and stones. Anand and Sandeep were carrying iron rods and Manoj had a stick and Pawan was hitting my brother Arjun with the stone, which he was holding. We made Arjun free from them and since my brother was badly injured, we started handing him and all four accused took advantage of the darkness and ran away from the spot and I and my uncle brought Arjun in an unconscious condition in my private car to the government hospital, Sohna, who was referred by the doctor to the higher hospital and we brought him from the government hospital, Sohana to Park hospital and admitted him."
5.
In view of above this Court does not find any substance in the plea raised by the State Counsel. There are specific allegations raised by the complainant who claims to be the eye-witness against Sanjdeep @ Sujan s/o Jagat Singh, Anand s/o Jagat Singh, Manoj @ Tooka s/o Shri Phire and DJ wala Pawan. It is specific case of the complainant that the aforesaid persons were beating his brother with the iron roads and sticks. 6.
In the light of above, without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 20.09.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.
7.
This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not
be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 8.
This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.
9.
The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.
10.
It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 11.
Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
December 13, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No