Crl. Misc. No.M-30729 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 30729 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 04, 2012 Bir Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent Criminal Misc. No. M- 31989 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 04, 2012 Dheeraj .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners, Bir Singh and Naveen. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner, Dheeraj. Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana, for the State. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The petitioners, Dheeraj, Bir Singh and Naveen have applied for regular bail by way of the above mentioned two petitions brought under section 439 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 75 dated 7.5.2011 at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad for an offence Crl. Misc. No.M-30729 of 2011 2 .. punishable under sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act. The case against the petitioners and others is as under: On 7.5.2011, Nakul and Kishan, his cousin had a tiff over leakage of water into the fields of the accused. Though the complainant, Amit and his uncle Seoraj intervened, yet the situation turned into heated arguments. The matter was then reported to Police Station Tigaon. The accused then pelted brick bats on the house of the complainant. This matter was again reported to the police. Thereafter, when the complainant along with his uncle Sheoraj and Balraj was going to the Police Station, they were waylaid by the accused who were with 8-10 unidentified persons. They were all armed with sticks, iron rods and other deadly weapons. They had hit Sheoraj and Balraj with their respective weapons. In the meanwhile, the police reached the spot and the accused escaped with their weapons. I have heard Mr.Animesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Bir Singh and Naveen, Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dheeraj and Mr. Vikas Malik, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Dheeraj has submitted that the injuries originally noticed on the person of Balraj at the government hospital did not make out a case of his being hit by kulhari. According to him, subsequently Balraj and Shoraj managed reports from private hospital showing injuries on their person corresponding to the weapons of Dheeraj and others. He has submitted that no reliance can be placed on those documents. He has further submitted that Dheeraj is claimed to Crl. Misc. No.M-30729 of 2011 3 .. have given a blow with kulhari on the back of head of Balraj while the injury specifying the ingredients of section 307 IPC is on the person of Sheoraj, which is not caused by Dheeraj. He has further submitted that none of the injuries suffered by Sheoraj had been caused by Dheeraj. According to him, petitioner Dheeraj is in custody since 8.5.2011. His last submission is that there are injuries on the other side also and there is cross-version of the occurrence. He has submitted that for these reasons, petitioner Dheeraj is entitled to bail. Learned counsel for petitioners, Bir Singh and Naveen has submitted that the role attributed to Bir Singh is similar to the role attributed to Raghubir. According to him, Raghubir had already been granted bail in this case. He has submitted that Naveen is claimed to have given a ballam blow on Sheoraj. According to him, there is nothing on the record to show as to how the ballam was used. He has submitted that the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to bail. As stated by learned State counsel, there had been 12 accused in all in this case, out of whom 3 were found innocent during investigation. According to him, out of the remaining 9, 4 stand granted the concession of bail. According to him, the reports of the private hospital are not fictitious. He has submitted that when the injured were examined at the Government Hospital, the injuries were bleeding and all the injuries could not be noticed. He has submitted that the admission of Sheoraj and Balraj at the private hospital is not for a day or two which can be claimed to have been done with a view to concoct injuries to involve the petitioners in a serious case. According to him, Balraj remained admitted at QRG Central Hospital and Research Centre for 13 Crl. Misc. No.M-30729 of 2011 4 .. days from 7.5.2011 to 20.5.2011 while Sheoraj Nagar remained admitted there from 7.5.2011 to 23.6.2011. He has submitted that the seriousness of the attack is quite apparent and the petitioners before the court are the persons responsible for this attack. According to him, they are not entitled to bail. It is true that the injury alleged to have been caused by Dheeraj to Balraj at the back of his head with kulhari does not seem to be there in the MLR. However, that becomes very much evident on the record of the private hospital, where the means to diagnose the illness and treatment had been quite modern. The Government Hospital had not conducted any X-ray to find out the injuries or their extent and, therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on those MLRs so as to exclude the medical evidence of the private hospital from consideration. The weapon used and the part of body on which the blow to Dheeraj is given is kulhari and back side of the head of Balraj Nagar. The injury found by the private hospital is depressed fracture of occipetal bone and it cannot be said at this stage that this is not the injury caused by Dheeraj. On the other hand, Naveen has used a ballam to hit Sheoraj and he is also not shown by the medical evidence to have caused any simple injury. So, looking to the gravity of the attack from the result of the same, I do not find it to be a fit case for enlarging Dheeraj and Naveen on bail. However, the case against Bir Singh is similar to the case of the prosecution against Raghubir. Since Raghubir has been allowed bail, the petitioner, Bir Singh is also entitled to the said concession on the ground of parity. Resultantly, Bir Singh is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. Crl. Misc. No.M-30729 of 2011 5 .. Consequently, Criminal Misc. No. M-30729 of 2011 filed on behalf of petitioner Bir Singh is allowed, whereas the bail application qua petitioner, Naveen is dismissed. Criminal Misc. No. M-31989 of 2011 filed by Dheeraj is also dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE January 04, 2012 som