Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1330 (PNJ)

Rakam Singh v. State of Haryana

2015-07-27

RAJ MOHAN SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.394 dated 12.10.2014, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 and 307 IPC, Police Station Gannaur, District Sonepat. 2. Complainant Bijender Singh @ Billu received injury at the hands of petitioner on his head which was declared to be simple as per MLR report (Annexure P-2). Injury on the person of Ramphool and Rajender were declared to be danger to life. Injury No.1 i.e swelling 3x2 cm of fronto parieto temporal region of scalp has been attributed to Rakam Singh, Charan Singh, Satbir, Telu, Billa, Jitender, Amit and Sumit. Injury on the person of Rajender has been attributed to Telu, Charan Singh and Sher Singh. The aforesaid attributions are in pursuance to statement of Rejender recorded on 20.10.2014, wherein he attributed injury on the head to three persons as mentioned above. There was only one injury on the head of Rajender. Similarly, injury on the head of Ramphool has been attributed to 8 persons without specifying the specific role of each of the accused. 3. Learned counsel relies upon CRM-M-9236 of 2015 titled as Telu Ram Vs. State of Haryana decided on 05.05.2015 and CRM-M-20773 of 2015 titled as Sher Singh @ Billa Vs. State of Haryana decided on 08.07.2015. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Davinder admits the factum of grant of bail to co-accused Telu Ram and Sher Singh. 5. At this stage, without forming any opinion on the merits of this case, prima facie it appears that injury on the person of Ramphool has been attributed to 8 persons without specifying their specific role. Challan stands presented. Petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2014. Trial may take some time. 6. In view of aforesaid, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. 7. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case. ———————