High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 17 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maha Singh vs State Of Haryana on 17 November, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                               Criminal Misc. No. M-25322 of 2009
                               Date of Decision : November 17, 2009


Maha Singh

                                                  ... Petitioner

                         versus

State of Haryana
                                                  ... Respondent

Present:     Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner

             Mr. Sidharath Sarup, AAG Haryana with
             Mr. RS Budhwar, Advocate for the complainant


L. N. Mittal, J.

Maha Singh has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 404

dated 30.9.2008 under sections 323, 324, 325, 302 read with section 34 IPC,

Police Station Assandh, District Karnal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

According to prosecution version, the petitioner inflicted lathi

blows on chest and leg of the deceased. Co-accused Satpal inflicted sword

blow on the right leg of the deceased whereas another co-accused

Dharampal inflicted gandasi blow on the head of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s

co-accused Satpal has already been granted bail by this Court vide order

Annexure P/12 and the petitioner is almost on parity with him. The

contention cannot be accepted because sword blow had been attributed to
Criminal Misc. No. M-25322 of 2009 -2-

Satpal but no corresponding injury was found on the body of the deceased

as there was no incised wound on the leg of the deceased. On the other

hand, lathi blows are attributed to the petitioner on chest and leg of the

deceased and corresponding injuries have been found on his body. Not

only that, there were multiple fractures of leg bones. Keeping in view the

role attributed to the petitioner, he cannot claim parity with Satpal in the

aforesaid circumstances.

In view of the aforesaid but without commenting anything on

merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

Dismissed.



                                                     ( L. N. Mittal )
November 17, 2009                                         Judge
 'dalbir'