Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 938 (PNJ)

Satvir v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-18

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed by Satvir, Krishan Kumar and Ravi seeking pre-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No. 678 dated 31.10.2001 registered under Sections 325, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Sadar Gurgaon. 2. Present case came to be registered on the statement of Satbir Singh, complainant, who is a milk vendor by profession. According to his assertion on 27.10.2001 at about 7.00 p.m. after delivering milk at Gurgaon when he was returning to his village, he noticed petitioners-accused Ravi Dutt, Satvir and Krishan Kumar sons of Shish Ram Ahir arguing with his elder brother Not Ram. He asked them as to why they were fighting with his brother, upon which Krishan Kumar and Ravi said "are you Panch of the village". The complainant demonstrated as to why they were fighting with his brother. On hearing this Krishan Kumar caught hold of his hand and Ravi hit on his head with hockey, while Satvir pushed him as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, he became unconscious. He was removed to the hospital. Initially case under Sections 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was registered but on the receipt of the medical report offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was added. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners accused while pressing for their bail mainly contended before me that report in this case came to be registered after three days of the alleged occurrence and the intervening time had been utilised by the complainant to put up a concocted and false story in order to rope in the petitioners. It was also pointed out by him that the injuries attributed to Ravi, petitioner had been got declared dangerous to life so as to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioners-accused. 4. It was also pointed out by him that the injuries attributed to Ravi, petitioner had been got declared dangerous to life so as to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioners-accused. 4. Opposing the submissions made it was urged by the State counsel that all the petitioners-accused had participated in the crime without any provocation and as a result injuries were suffered by the complainant at the hands of Ravi, petitioner accused which had been declared as dangerous to life and liability of other accused has to be inferred in relation to this offence in view of the provision of Section 34 I.P.C. It has not been disputed by the State counsel that initially the petitioners were admitted to bail for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. It is clear from the record that the complainant was admitted in the Department of Neuro-surgery, Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, on 31.10.2001 and was discharged therefrom on 5.11.2001. In the discharge summary it had been clearly indicted that the injury suffered by the complainant was diagnosed as case of compound depressed left parietal bone. On the basis of above report, injury had been declared dangerous to life by the Medical Officer whose opinion was sought by the Police during the investigation of the case. No doubt, he had been initially discharged from the hospital at Gurgaon on 29.10.2001 but the report of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi and the opinion of the Medical Officer subsequently obtained cannot be ignored at this stage so far Ravi, petitioner-accused is concerned. 5. Taking into account the nature of injuries attributed to Ravi, petitioner, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out due him. Consequently, Criminal Misc. No.9185-M of 2002 is dismissed. 6. As regards other accused namely, Satvir and Krishan kumar they have not caused any injury with any weapon to the complainant and keeping in view the nature of attribution against them and the circumstances of the case I accept their bail petition and order that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be admitted to anticipatory bail by the Arresting Officer of their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to his satisfaction undertaking their in to abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code. Criminal Misc. No. 4923-m of 2002 is accordingly allowed.