Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
   (O&M) Date of Decision:- 04.04.2025


....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY




 



  



! "# $% & ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case s:- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 28.06.2023 307, 323, 332, 353, 186 and 34 IPC City, District Rewari 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 the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2023 without there being any role attributed to him. He contends that no alleged incident ever took place and the injury sustained by the victim was on account of fall from the motorcycle. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and

-2the 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 status report has opposed the petition by arguing that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having given blow with a sharp-edged weapon upon the victim, who was working as a Homeguard, on his head and the said injury had been declared dangerous to life. He submits that the petitioner is the main accused in the crime to whom injury on the head, which was declared dangerous to life has been attributed, as such, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

4.

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

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that as per the case of prosecution on 28.06.2023, the complainant Head Constable Sudhir Kumar along with Anil Kumar Homeguard, Vikram Singh Homeguard were present in the area of Railway Chowk Rewari, then one Akshay son of Rameshwar Singh came there and gave a complaint that Vinod Kumar (petitioner herein) under the influence of liquor had quarrelled and broken the household article in his house. Upon which, the police party reached the spot along with him and saw the petitioner quarrelling with one Mohit under the influence of liquor. When the police officials tried to pacify them, then they started quarrelling with the police party and all of a sudden the petitioner took out a sharp edged weapon from inside the house and gave a blow on the head of Anil Kumar, Homeguard. Thereafter, both the assailants ran away from the spot and the

-3victim was shifted to hospital. During the course of investigation, the injury on the head of Anil Kumar, Homeguard was declared dangerous to life. 6.

A perusal of record would reveal that there is specific attribution to the petitioner of having given injury with a sharp edged weapon on the head of victim Anil Kumar, Homeguard who was performing his police duty. The said injury with sharp edged weapon, on the vital part of the body of victim, has been declared dangerous to life. 7.

In these circumstances, considering the serious nature and gravity of offence involved, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. '

& (

  (

## (

   

)        (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 04.04.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No