Ajay Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059950
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-29-2013
AppellantAjay Singh
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m-17903 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m-17903 of 2013 date of decision:29. 05.2013 ajay singh ....petitioner versus state of haryana ....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh present: - mr.diwan s. adlakha, advocate, for the petitioner. ***** paramjeet singh, j. (oral) the instant petition under section 438 cr.p.c.has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case fir no.82 dated 4.6.2012 registered under sections 148/149/323/324/325/326/506 ipc at police station sadar yamuna nagar, district yamuna nagar. heard. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has not been named in the fir. name of the petitioner appears only in the statement of one dushyant kumar, at the instance of whose mother fir has been registered, wherein the allegations have been levelled. learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the fact that one dalip @ nitu, who is said to be similarly situated accused, has been granted pre- arrest bail by this court and another co-accused has been admitted to regular bail by the trial court. i have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. crl. misc. not m-17903 of 2013 -2- there is specific injury attributed to the petitioner with a sariya. in addition to it, allegations in the fir are to the effect that petitioner and other entered into the house and tied the hands of daughter-in-law of the complainant and caused injuries to other members of the family. in such circumstances, it is rarely possible that complainant would be knowing the name of the person who has entered into the house, it is generally during the investigation that such things come to the fore. so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that dalip @ nitu has been granted anticipatory bail by this court is concerned, this court while considering the case of dalip @ nitu recorded the contention in the order that petitioner (dalip @ nitu) had suffered more injuries than the complainant party and was referred to pgi and it was yet to be determined that who was the aggressor. petitioner is not a similarly situated accused. in view of the above, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. dismissed. (paramjeet singh) judge may 29, 2013 r.s.
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M-17903 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-17903 of 2013 Date of decision:

29. 05.2013 Ajay Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: - Mr.Diwan S.

Adlakha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

(ORAL) The instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.82 dated 4.6.2012 registered under Sections 148/149/323/324/325/326/506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has not been named in the FIR.

Name of the petitioner appears only in the statement of one Dushyant Kumar, at the instance of whose mother FIR has been registered, wherein the allegations have been levelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the fact that one Dalip @ Nitu, who is said to be similarly situated accused, has been granted pre- arrest bail by this Court and another co-accused has been admitted to regular bail by the trial Court.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-17903 of 2013 -2- There is specific injury attributed to the petitioner with a sariya.

In addition to it, allegations in the FIR are to the effect that petitioner and other entered into the house and tied the hands of daughter-in-law of the complainant and caused injuries to other members of the family.

In such circumstances, it is rarely possible that complainant would be knowing the name of the person who has entered into the house, it is generally during the investigation that such things come to the fore.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Dalip @ Nitu has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court is concerned, this Court while considering the case of Dalip @ Nitu recorded the contention in the order that petitioner (Dalip @ Nitu) had suffered more injuries than the complainant party and was referred to PGI and it was yet to be determined that who was the aggressor.

Petitioner is not a similarly situated accused.

In view of the above, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge May 29, 2013 R.S.