Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1811 (PNJ)

Mohit v. State Of Haryana

2018-04-19

RAJ MOHAN SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Raj Mohan Singh. J. (Oral) - Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.1089 dated 16.12.2017, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 & 506 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 2. As per allegations in the FIR, complainant used to run a DJ Shop. On 07.12.2017, Vinod Pandit and Cheema gave beatings to the younger brother of the complainant after consuming liquor. The complainant-party has already filed a complaint in the police station in respect of that episode.Accused were pressurizing the complainant. On 08.12.2017, Vinod Pandit and Cheema etc. opened attack on the complainant party. Vinod Pandit @ Bonny was armed with kulhari (axe). Cheema was armed with sword. Vikki and Shaikki were armed with wooden spade handle. Petitioner was also armed with wooden spade handle. All the aforesaid persons are alleged to have inflicted injuries on the person of complainant with their respective weapons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Initially FIR was registered only under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 & 506 IPC, however offence under Section 326 IPC was added later on. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Anil Kumar submitted that challan has already been presented. Charges have not been framed yet. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.02.2018. 5. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the offence is triable by the Magistrate and prima facie no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail. 6. In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.