Crl. Misc. No.M-18977 of 2011 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-18977 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.07.2011
Jai Singh alias Lala and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
..Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Jitender Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
.....
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the
pendency of the petition, petitioners No.4, 5 and 7 were arrested and have
been released on regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition qua petition-
ers No.4, 5 and 7 has been rendered infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
The present FIR has been registered with the allegations that
the petitioners had attacked the complainant when he had gone to collect
cash on the liquor vend, which is owned by his brother Rakesh. It is alleged
that the petitioners trespassed into the shop and injured the complainant
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the size of
the liquor vend is small i.e. 14 feet X 14 feet. It is practically impossible that
the persons named in the FIR could enter into that small shop. All the inju-
ries on the persons of the complainant were found to be simple. Though the
allegations in the FIR are that the fight took place on account of refusal of
the complainant to give them liquor on credit earlier but there are no allega-
Crl. Misc. No.M-18977 of 2011 2
tions that on the date of fight, they had taken either cash or any bottle of liq-
uor.
The aforesaid facts stated by the learned counsel for the peti-
tioners are not disputed by the learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the complainant merely referred to obser-
vations made by the learned court below while rejecting the bail application
of the petitioners.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and finding that
the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant, who himself is not the
owner of the shop, which is alleged to have trespassed by the petitioners,
were found to be simple; there are no allegations that they had snatched the
cash from him or had taken any bottle of liquor from the shop, in my opin-
ion, custodial interrogation of petitioners No.1 to 3 and 6 is not required,
therefore, they are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on
28.07.2011 at 10.00 a.m. and in case of arrest, they shall be released on fur-
nishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They
shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for
further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as con-
tained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE
15.07.2011
sharmila