High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/54259/2019allowed

Palvinder Singh v. State Of Haryana

2020-01-17Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.54259 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.01.2020 Palvinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

***** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.294 dated 25.08.2019, registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 452 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal. The FIR was registered at the instance of Daler Singh. Presence of the petitioner was shown at the spot with an axe in his hands. The allegations in the FIR are that Sardool Singh son of Nishan Singh gave a 'Kulhara' blow on the head of

-2the complainant. Sardool Singh also gave 'Kulhara' blow on the head of Pragat Singh. Other persons also caused injuries to the brothers of the complainant namely Kehar Singh and Daler Singh and his sons namely Gurtej Veer Singh and Gurjant Singh. The injury attributed to Sardool Singh on the person of Pargat Singh ultimately falls under the mischief of Section 307 IPC.

As per medicolegal report of Kehar Singh, he has also received grievous injuries. Additional District Judge, Karnal has distinguished the case of the petitioner from co-accused Vikram only on the difference in age of the petitioner and Vikram. The FIR is silent about specific attribution. The statement of injured Kehar Singh would give rise to a debatable issue. Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Parveen Kumar states that the challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed.

The petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2019. In the light of aforesaid facts and without meaning anything on the merits of the case, it would be just and appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of

-3Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Karnal.

Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an opinion on merits of the case.

17.01.2020 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No