Lekh Raj Vs.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 25, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1061890

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1061890
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jul 25, 2013
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lekh Raj

Excerpt

.....tried to tell the petitioner that he should stop teasing his daughter. then petitioner started abusing the complainant. complainant returned sandeep sethi 2013.07.26 10:31 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm not m-17004 of 2013 (o&m) 2 home and after one hour, petitioner entered the house of the complainant, armed with an iron rod and gave a blow with it on the head of the complainant. as a result of this, complainant fell down and raised alarm. brother of the complainant reached the spot and petitioner then fled away from the spot. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to party faction. no offence under section 307 ipc is made out. learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that injury on the head of the complainant was declared to be dangerous to life. four witnesses out of eleven witnesses have already been examined. not the case is listed before the trial court for 27.07.2013. in the present case, allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. further out of eleven witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined. a perusal of the order passed by the learned sessions judge while declining the grant of bail to the petitioner reveals that every effort is being made to decide the trial expeditiously. hence, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge july 25, 2013 sandeep sethi sandeep sethi 2013.07.26 10:31 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

CRM not M-17004 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (209) CRM not M-17004 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:

25. 07.2013.

Lekh Raj ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No.47 dated 27.01.2013 under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506 and Section 307 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sector 55, Faridabad.

As per the prosecution story, petitioner had been teasing the minot daughter of the complainant and had been indulging in obscene activities.

On 27.01.2013, at about 8.00 a.m., petitioner met the complainant in a street.

Complainant tried to tell the petitioner that he should stop teasing his daughter.

Then petitioner started abusing the complainant.

Complainant returned Sandeep Sethi 2013.07.26 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM not M-17004 of 2013 (O&M) 2 home and after one hour, petitioner entered the house of the complainant, armed with an iron rod and gave a blow with it on the head of the complainant.

As a result of this, complainant fell down and raised alarm.

Brother of the complainant reached the spot and petitioner then fled away from the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to party faction.

No offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that injury on the head of the complainant was declared to be dangerous to life.

Four witnesses out of eleven witnesses have already been examined.

not the case is listed before the Trial Court for 27.07.2013.

In the present case, allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Further out of eleven witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined.

A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge while declining the grant of bail to the petitioner reveals that every effort is being made to decide the trial expeditiously.

Hence, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE July 25, 2013 sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.07.26 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties Lekh Raj vs Same Subject Criminal