Criminal Misc. No. M-10568 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10568 of 2011 Date of decision: 07.06.2011 Mahipal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 147, 148, 323, 342, 302 IPC vide FIR No. 189 dated 13.10.2010 at police station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to allegation, 19 persons had caused injuries to the deceased. However, MLR (Annexure P-2) shows that only three injuries were received by him. He submitted that 14 accused had been exonerated by the investigating agency. Motive of commission of crime is stated to be that deceased owed money to some of the assailants. He submits that entire prosecution story being inherently improbable, the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submitted that no prosecution witness had been examined till now. The post mortem report showed number of injuries and cause of death Criminal Misc. No. M-10568 of 2011 2 was a head injury. According to him, all the assailants belong to the same family. He submits that in view of nature of crime, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR was lodged by Mohar Singh who stated that on 13.10.2010, his grandson (deceased) was dragged out of house by the petitioner along with co-accused and took him to their house. He was tied to a ‘Neem’ tree and was badly beaten up. Due to this reason, he became unconscious. A complaint was lodged at the stage when deceased was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak. He later died. It is clear that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is stated to be one of the persons who caused injuries to the deceased. Prosecution evidence before the trial court is yet to commence. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 07.06.2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) AJAY JUDGE