Karan Singh v. State Of Haryana
!" #$% &'%()*) +,
, -.
/0 1%*%+$,
! "#$ % & '
&
"(
/02
( (()
( (() *!
(( ! + ',- " * "( ',
"
"
" #)+(#*% 1.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant him pre-arrest bail in FIR No.230 dated 16.10.2024 under Sections 190/121(1)/132/223(A)/351(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ambala City (Haryana).
2.
The FIR in the present case was got registered by Chandershekhar, bailiff and the same reads as under:- ./
0 ( "*( 1 2
1 $ % '34
(' "*( 1"
#(
(( 0! (5 5% "*( /6768,8,31) 9+ '6::-,3 )
6868,8,3 ) +
6366,8,3
1
(
( !
" ;"
'6<7:
# (
68 "*(
* 6,=:8 1 ()
"
( !
"
"
5(* '
(/
()
1
)
"(
( ) ( ) 1 ( "*
)
( )
"
( ( "
"
( "
($ () 1 " "
"
"
)
(
$
( / "
( !
" (
( >"
"
1 )" " " (
) *
* 3=88
) (* "
) )"
*(
"
"
"
"
() 6<?,8 *) "( "
@($ ( "
1)((
(
* "
* "
/ "( * "
() "( * "
( !
" "
"
(
"" " )"
) ) 1
! " $
( ( A 1!
"
* $
?* "
(
* "
( ) " 9
(( "( *
$(("
!
" )*
( $
# 6<?,8"( *) "
$)
)$ * "(
* "
@ ( *
" 1 (( " "
(
$ % '34
( ' "*( )$#(
( (( 0! (5 5% "*( *( 'B367BC3:88.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the present case are palpably false as no such incident had taken place at all. On 16.10.2024, when the official (complainant) of the court below came at the spot and asked the petitioner to vacate the shop, the petitioner requested the complainant to wait for some time as the petitioner had to get confirmed from his advocate regarding the orders of warrant of possession. The petitioner left the spot to meet his lawyer and in his absence, the goods/material belonging to the petitioner were taken out of the shop and the goods were handed over to decree holder in a wrong and illegal manner.
4.
Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had earlier served in Indian Army and had no criminal background. He always respected the orders passed by the court and had also vacated the shop on
getting the orders from the court. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had never misbehaved with the bailiff of the court and the FIR has been wrongly got registered by the complainant against the petitioner. 5.
On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by alleging that the petitioner had beaten up the bailiff of the court and had also torn his uniform. Further, the petitioner and his accomplices had caused serious injuries on the person of bailiff, an officer of the court, and he was medico legally examined by the doctor. Still further, while referring to the order dated 21.10.2024, learned counsel submit that even 18/20 masked persons had assaulted the decree holder and bailiff during the proceedings of taking the possession of the property in question. Apparently, the bailiff and the decree holder were attacked at the instance of the present petitioner as the possession of the property of the petitioner was to be taken by them, in compliance of the judgment passed by the civil court.
6.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file minutely.
7.
In the present case, the bailiff of the court had gone to take possession of the property in question from the petitioner and after reaching at the spot, bailiff and decree holder were beaten up and even the uniform of the bailiff was torn and injuries were inflicted to him. Even in order dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-12), the trial Court had noticed the said fact. Thus, it is apparent that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Moreover, in the considered opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner
is imperative to know the names of co-accused, who had helped the petitioner in attacking the bailiff/complainant. 8.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merits.
/0"
mks
$- = ;9-'0
*( = ;9-'0