Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Pankaj Sood Vs. State

Pankaj Sood vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 21, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907639

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appln. No.1814/2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

[K SREEDHAR RAO ; K.N KESHAVANARAYANA JJ.] This CRL,A. filed d/s 378(LJ & (3) CR.F.C by the- state P.P. for the state praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal Dt. 15-04-05 passed by the S.J. Kcdagu-Madikeri, in S.C.NO.6/02, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 308

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pankaj Sood

Advocate Mr. Ritesh Bahri, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. Sunil Sharma; Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 308

Excerpt

[k sreedhar rao ; k.n keshavanarayana jj.] this crl,a. filed d/s 378(lj & (3) cr.f.c by the- state p.p. for the state praying to grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 15-04-05 passed by the s.j. kcdagu-madikeri, in s.c.no.6/02, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences p/u/sb 498-a, 4 94 & 302 of ipc and to set aside the order.1. this application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner/ applicant for grant of anticipatory bail who was booked under section 308 of ipc. the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was complainant who was in drunken condition and the present fir was counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 8th august 2010 against the complainant.2. the incident in which the accused/ petitioner is involved seems to be road-rage incident. the vehicle of the complainant dashed against petitioner's car. as per the allegations, the petitioner/applicant thereafter started abusing the complainant and when complainant tried to stop him, the accused took out a beer bottle from his car, broke it and hit the complainant with it on his face, head, neck, shoulder resulting into serious injuries on his person. a perusal of mlc would show that the injuries on the person of complainant were grievous, sharp with ragged margins. the counsel for complainant and state counsel has placed on record photographs of the injuries suffered by the complainant. a perusal of these photographs clearly shows that the complainant was brutally hit repeatedly by the broken bottle resulting cut wounds on the entire face starting from forehead, near the eyes, ear, cheeks and shows that the wounds were not superficial deep quite deep. the complainant was initially taken to mool chand hospital, perhaps by the accused, where the accused left him and ran away. from mool chand hospital, the complainant was removed to a hospital in gurgaon. he had to undergo surgery and stitches on different parts of face and remained hospitalized for considerable time.3. considering the above facts, i find it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. the application for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner/ applicant for grant of anticipatory bail who was booked under Section 308 of IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was complainant who was in drunken condition and the present FIR was counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 8th August 2010 against the complainant.

2. The incident in which the accused/ petitioner is involved seems to be road-rage incident. The vehicle of the complainant dashed against petitioner's car. As per the allegations, the petitioner/applicant thereafter started abusing the complainant and when complainant tried to stop him, the accused took out a beer bottle from his car, broke it and hit the complainant with it on his face, head, neck, shoulder resulting into serious injuries on his person. A perusal of MLC would show that the injuries on the person of complainant were grievous, sharp with ragged margins. The counsel for complainant and State counsel has placed on record photographs of the injuries suffered by the complainant. A perusal of these photographs clearly shows that the complainant was brutally hit repeatedly by the broken bottle resulting cut wounds on the entire face starting from forehead, near the eyes, ear, cheeks and shows that the wounds were not superficial deep quite deep. The complainant was initially taken to Mool Chand Hospital, perhaps by the accused, where the accused left him and ran away. From Mool Chand Hospital, the complainant was removed to a hospital in Gurgaon. He had to undergo surgery and stitches on different parts of face and remained hospitalized for considerable time.

3. Considering the above facts, I find it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial