Crl.Misc. No.M-18944 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 12, 2011. (1) Crl.Misc. No.M-18944 of 2011. Sunny alias Dogar alias Manoj Kumar .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * (2) Crl.Misc. No.M-20109 of 2011. Tejinder Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Ms.Minakshi Poswal, Advocate, for Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-18944-2011. Mr.Ravi Gakhar, Advocate, for Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-20109-2011. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr.Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-18944 of 2011 M.M.S.BEDI, J. This order will dispose of the above note two petitions for the grant of pre-arrest bail one filed by Sunny alias Dogar alias Manoj Kumar and another filed by Tejinder Singh in FIRNo.181 dated 03.06.2011, registered under Section 323, 326, 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. The FIR was registered on the statement of Sanjiv Kumar alleging that he is employed with Haryana Police at Ambala and on 31.05.2011, his friend Charanjeet Singh had arranged a retirement party of his father Harvinder Singh at his home. At about 8:30 PM, a dispute arose between Ravi Kumar son of Ranjeet Yadav and Sunny son of Rajesh Kumar and Tejinder Singh, over a petty dispute. The complainant intervened and took Tejinder Singh along with Ravi. Thereafter, when the complainant came back inside the tent and took meals, cries were heard from outside. The complainant found that both the petitioners were beating one boy. When the complainant intervened, petitioner Tejinder Singh exhorted Sunny to catch hold of the complainant. Petitioner Sunny allegedly caught hold of him and the other petitioner Tejinder Singh gave fist and slap blows and also a blow with small knife carried by him in his hand as a result of which the complainant fell down. Ravi raised hue and cry which attracted other people on which the petitioners fled away from the spot threatening the complainant. Complainant was taken to a private hospital in Yamuna Nagar on 31.05.2011, where he was . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-18944 of 2011 medico-legally examined from where he was referred to PGI. On 01.06.2011, the doctors of PGI operated upon his left eye. He claimed that he was unconscious and regained conscious on 03.06.2011, and made his statement to the police subsequently. Counsel for the petitioners, Sunny and Tejinder Singh, contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. It was urged that the incident is of 31.05.2011, whereas the FIR was lodged on 03.06.2011. Offence under Section 326 IPC has been wrongly added as the injury, if any, on the person of complainant is opined to be on account of blunt weapon as per the MLR. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the application for bail submitting that the eye of the complainant has been badly damaged and he has lost vision. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the complainant being an employee of Haryana police has been able to get a police case registered against the petitioners. It was submitted that the complainant had consumed excessive liquor despite the fact that he was not an invitee to the party. He started creating nuisance amongst the ladies of the family who were dancing on the occasion. Few photographs have been placed on record indicating the complainant consuming liquor and dancing with a bottle of whisky in his hand. The complainant appears to be one of the tallest person in the party. The three photographs of complainant dancing with bottle of whisky amongst his friends and the family . . . 3 Crl.Misc. No.M-18944 of 2011 members have been made available on the record. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners in context to the photographs showing the complainant in drunkard condition, he was asked to leave the party to his displeasure. The story put forth by the complainant regarding the knife injury having been inflicted by Tejinder Singh is patently unbelievable as the MLR of the complainant describe the injury on the eye with a blunt weapon. Injury on the eye, as per the MLR, is as follows: - “Complains of pain in left eye. Small lacerated wound 1cm X 0.5 cm X 0 cm present over upper eye-lid, left eye, redness of eye present. Swelling coupled with haemorrhage present. Swelling present over both the eye-lids. Complaints of decreased vision in left eye. Referred to eye Surgeon for opinion. Nature of injury KUO Kind of weapon Blunt Remarks duration within 6 hours.” Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the record of PGI, to submit that the left eye of the complainant was subjected to surgical procedure. A perusal of the surgical notes indicates that the prolapsed meal tissue had been cut and the complainant was discharged with advise to maintain ocular hygiene and wear dark glasses. . . . 4 Crl.Misc. No.M-18944 of 2011 It is not out of place to mention here that while noting the brief summary, the medical authorities had noted that the complainant had stated that he had been assaulted by belt buckle. The complainant has already been discharged from the hospital. It will be a debatable issue during trial whether the injury received by the complainant is actually a grievous injury with sharp edged weapon as alleged by him. In view of said attending circumstances showing the complainant consuming liquor and dancing amongst the family members with a bottle of whisky in his hand, the authenticity of the version put forth by the complainant would have to be ascertained during trial. The petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioners in above background can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Both the petitions are allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police and that they will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner. Nothing said in this order will affect the merits of the case during the course of trial. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 12, 2011. rka . . . 5