IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc M- 33313 of 2009
Date of decision: 10.12.2009
Bhim Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Present: Ms Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr Pawan Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr Parvez Chugh, Advocate for the complainant.
S.S.SARON, J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered
against him for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 307 and 506 IPC at
PS Farrukh Nagar, Gurgaon.
Cr Misc M- 33313 of 2009 2
The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of
Rajinder Singh, who has stated that on 2.10.2009 at about 9 p.m., he was
going to the village temple due to some personal work. When he reached
near the temple, Bhim Singh – petitioner was standing there who started
abusing him. The complainant asked him as to why he was abusing him,
then he said that he will teach the complainant a lesson. After saying this,
he started beating the complainant and hurled fist blows as also kicked
him. He picked up a ‘danda’ lying there and gave a beating to the
complainant. When the complainant raised cries of ‘Maar Dia Maar Dia’,
his brother Rajbir saved him from the clutches of the accused, otherwise he
would have beaten him more.
The petitioner was initially arrested for the offences under
Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC on 28.10.2009 and he was released on bail
by the learned trial Court on 29.10.2009. The complainant was medico-
legally examined at 1.15 p.m. on 3.10.2009 i.e. almost after 14 hours of the
occurrence. Four injuries were found on his person i.e. (i) multiple
abrasions on chest, abdomen and back; (ii) pain and swelling of left arm
elbow; (iii) redness on left arm and right shoulder and (iv) swelling and
redness on back. Injuries (i) to (iii) were described as caused with blunt
weapon. On 4.12.2009 (P3), a medical opinion was sought by the IO as to
whether the complainant who had suffered four injuries in the case, had left
the hospital on his own or was referred and whether the four injuries on his
person were dangerous to life or not. Dr Neeraj at Government Hospital,
Gurgaon stated that the patient i.e. complainant – Rajinder Singh had left
on his own and also opined that the injuries on his person were not
dangerous to life. The complainant in fact had left the hospital and had got
Cr Misc M- 33313 of 2009 3
treatment from Dr Subarth Saxena of Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon, who
opined the injuries as dangerous to life.
In view of the conflicting opinions of Dr Neeraj of Govt
Hospital, Gurgaon and Dr Subarth Saxena of Pushpanjali Hospital,
Gurgaon, a Medical Board was constituted who gave its opinion after
seeing the copy of the MLR, x-ray report, USG report of Pushpanjali
Hospital including the summary treatment, that the injury on the person of
Rajinder Singh – complainant was dangerous to life. It is, however, not
mentioned as to which injury was dangerous to life.
It may be noticed that Dr Neeraj of Govt Hospital, Gurgaon
had opined that injury-1 had resulted in grievous fracture in rib 7th and 8th
left side and was not dangerous to life. Therefore, it is the said injury-1
which is on the chest of the complainant – Rajinder Singh, which has been
opined to be dangerous to life. However, the petitioner has been arrested
and released on regular bail in respect of other offences i.e. other than
Section 307 IPC. In Saudagar Singh v. State of Punjab 1996(1) Recent
Criminal Reports 456, this Court in a case where the accused had been
released on bail for the offences under Sections 452, 336, 323 and 324 IPC
and subsequently the offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC were added,
granted anticipatory bail. In the present case, it has been opined by the
Medical Board that the injury on the person of the complainant is dangerous
to life. It may be noticed that an injury which endangers life is also a
grievous injury in terms of Clause eighthly to Section 320 IPC. Therefore,
this aspect is to be considered at the appropriate stage by the Court in case
the challan is filed for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, merely
because Section 307 IPC has now been added and it is to be established
Cr Misc M- 33313 of 2009 4
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, it would be just
and expedient to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the
application for bail and it is submitted that the petitioner is forcing the
complainant to compromise the matter for which he has made a
representation. However, in case the petitioner has in any manner
pressurized the complainant, he has his remedy of seeking cancellation of
bail in accordance with law by placing on record relevant material to show
that the concession of bail has been misused by the petitioner.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed and in the event of
arrest of the petitioner, on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the
satisfaction of the arresting/IO, he shall be admitted to bail. He shall join
investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of
Section 438(2) CrPC. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the investigations
shall be carried out and the learned trial Court shall consider the case on the
basis of evidence and material as placed before it uninfluenced by any
observations made herein.
10.12.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge