Criminal Misc. No. M-23360 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23360 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 16 ,2009 Ramdev Sharma .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anhul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 239 dated 14.7.2009, registered under Sections 323/452/506/307 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case has been falsely implicated. In fact, he is qualified technocrat, who is Engineering Graduate from the University of Roorkee and MBA from AIMA, working as Chief Technology and Marketing Officer with a multi national company. He further submitted that in the same building, the complainant is residing on the ground floor, whereas the petitioner is residing on the second floor. To substantiate the plea raised by the petitioner regarding strained relations between the parties, which gives cause to the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner, various documents placed on record were referred to, which include letters written by the petitioner to the District Town Planner; Administrator, HUDA and Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon for unauthorised construction being made by the complainant. He has also referred to the complaint made by him to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Gurgaon against the complainant and her husband, followed by a complaint to the Deputy Criminal Misc. No. M-23360 of 2009 [2] Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon. Regarding the conduct of the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to document Annexure P-10, the complaint made by one Ajay Shokeen of Mayfield Projects regarding threat by the husband of the complainant. Minutes of the meeting of Resident Welfare Association, South City- II have also been placed on record, wherein while discussing the issue of unauthorised construction by the complainant, it was noticed that the husband of the complainant continued with his defiant attitude and failed to initiate corrective action in spite of reminder. Referring to the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that considering the previous relations between the parties, there is every likelihood of false implication of the petitioner to settle the score. He further submitted that the alleged injuries, which have been suffered by the complainant, can very well be by fall on a slippery surface. The previous conduct of the petitioner shows that he was following proper procedure to raise the issue of unauthorised construction by the complainant and did not want to take the law into his own hand. He further submitted that even otherwise, the report of the doctor from a private hospital should not be relied upon, considering the fact that the complainant instead of going to the Civil Hospital, immediately went to a private hospital, whereas in Gurgaon, there is well-equipped Civil Hospital, which can take care of emergency and there was none in the present case. He further submitted that at the most, the injuries, which have been allegedly suffered by the complainant, would fall under Section 325 IPC, which is bailable. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. In the end, he submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that delay in registration of FIR in the present case is not fatal, considering the fact that initially the complainant was not fit to make statement. Fractures were found on the head and shoulder of the complainant. Immediately at the time of admission in the hospital at the first instance, it was mentioned that it is a case of assault by a neighbour. Merely because the complainant had gone to a super speciality private hospital considering the seriousness of the injuries, adverse inference should not be drawn. It is a reputed hospital to which no allegation of malice can be attributed. As the injury was found on the head, the intention is quite clear and the offence under Section 307 IPC is clearly made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Much arguments have been addressed on the educational qualifications of the petitioner as well as previous dispute between them with Criminal Misc. No. M-23360 of 2009 [3] regard to the construction being raised by the complainant which, according to the petitioner, is unauthorised, but still considering the fact that the injuries suffered by the complainant are fractures on the head and also on the shoulder, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 16 ,2009 mk