Dinesh v. State Of Haryana
-1318(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46299-2022 Date of Decision:- 20.03.2023 SANGEETA AND ANOTHER
...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
Date of Decision:- 20.03.2023 DINESH
...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:
Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ambika Sood, Additional A.G. Haryana.
**** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) The petitioners - Sangeeta and Pardeep have filed joint petition and petitioner - Dinesh has filed separate petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 409 dated 07.07.2022, under Sections 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 354-B, 452, 506 of IPC and subsequently deleted Section 354-B and 452 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kharkohda, District Sonipat. Both these petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, therefore, both the petitions are taken up together for
-2disposal.
The facts of the case are that the complainant Santra gave her statement to the police that about 15-20 days ago, a quarrel had taken place between them and Om Parkash. The matter was compromised between the parties. Yesterday evening, another quarrel took place in continuation of the aforesaid incident. In that quarrel, Om Parkash, Sarla, Manish, Dinesh, Sangeeta, Pardeep and six other persons entered their house and inflicted injuries on her and on the person of her husband Satya Prakash, Suman, Rohtash, Sandeep, Saroj and Anu. They had torn the clothes of Anu and sister-in-law Saroj and Suman and outraged their modesty. They were attacked with axe and iron rods and they threatened to kill them. They were taken to Government hospital for treatment and further referred to PGI, Rohtak. They apprehended danger to their life.
With these allegations, the present FIR has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is a case of version and cross-version. The aforesaid FIR placed on file is Annexure P1 and the FIR registered on the complaint of Manish against Rohtash and others under Section 148, 149, 308, 323, 506 of IPC is Annexure P-2. The present petitioners have already joined the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from them. They will abide by the terms of bail order. It is prayed that ad interim bail already granted in their favour may be confirmed.
The bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing the State. Detailed status report has been received. It is conceded that Sangeeta and Pardeep have joined the investigation on 21.10.2022, whereas, as per the status report, Dinesh has also joined the investigation
-3on 22.11.2022. The status report shows that during investigation, some disclosure statements are also recorded. However, it is prayed that they are further required for investigation. Therefore, considering the gravity of offence, their anticipatory bail application may be dismissed. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. As referred above, it is a case of version and crossversion. As per the status report, the present petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are still ready to join as and when required. Therefore, no purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars. Considering these facts, the ad interim bail already granted in favour of petitioners - Sangeeta and Pardeep vide order dated 14.10.2022 and ad interim bail already granted in favour of petitioner - Dinesh vide order dated 16.11.2022 stand confirmed, subject to the conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Both the petitions are accordingly, accepted. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. 20.03.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI) lalit JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No