Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1022 (PNJ)

Rajender @ Pala v. State of Haryana

2024-07-09

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Section/s 319 27.10.2020 Sector 13-17, Panipat, District Panipat 323, 324, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Sections 201 and 326 IPC were added later on 2. The allegations, in nutshell, against the petitioner are that on account of a dispute regarding parking of motorcycle in the street, he inflicted injuries to the complainant leading to chopping of half of his ear. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the genesis of occurrence has been suppressed in the FIR inasmuch as the petitioner as well as his son and his wife had also sustained injuries and in respect of which FIR No.320 dated 27.10.2020 at Police Station Sector 13/17, Panipat under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-2) came to be lodged. It has been submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner had earlier been released on regular bail, but subsequently upon addition of offence under Section 326 IPC, he apprehends his arrest and has thus prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the serious nature of injury caused by the petitioner leading to chopping of half of ear of the complainant, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, not disputed that the petitioner had earlier been granted bail when offence under Section 326 IPC had not been added. It has also been informed that the petitioner pursuant to directions issued by this Court has joined investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition while submitting that the petitioner being the main accused and having inflicted an injury with a lethal weapon in the nature of a sword, does not deserve the concession of bail. It has also been informed that since the present petition is the second petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail, the same would not be maintainable particularly when there is no change of circumstances after dismissal of the earlier petition. Learned counsel, in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submissions, places reliance upon the following judgments: (i) judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9449/2021 titled Md. Learned counsel, in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submissions, places reliance upon the following judgments: (i) judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9449/2021 titled Md. Shamim Khan Versus The State of Jharkhand, decided on 16.12.2021. (ii) judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in M/s Gati Limited Versus T. Nagarajan Piramiajee and another, 2019(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 805. (iii) judgment passed by this Court rendered in CRM-M-45661 of 2018 titled Geeta Utreja Versus State of Punjab, decided on 21.2.2019. 6. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7. As far as maintainability of the instant petition is concerned, a perusal of order dated 24.3.2021 passed in the earlier petition i.e. CRM-M-12279-2021 filed on behalf of petitioner - Rajender @ Pala seeking grant of anticipatory bail shows that the same had been dismissed as withdrawn as the learned counsel at the very outset had made a request for withdrawal of the same. 8. The judgments relied upon by complainant are distinguishable inasmuch as in the cited cases, the earlier petitions had been rejected on merits whereas in the present case the earlier petition was withdrawn at the very outset. 9. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no bar in entertaining the petition filed subsequently when the earlier petition had been dismissed as withdrawn. Though this Court does find that the petitioner is the main accused, who has been attributed grievous injury, but at the same time 3 persons from the side of petitioner have also sustained simple injuries. In any case, since the petitioner has already joined investigation and had earlier been granted bail before addition of offence under Section 326 IPC, there is no special case for any custodial interrogation at this stage. The instant petition, as such, is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.