Narinder @ Ninder vs State Of Haryana on 2 July, 2009

 CRM No. M-13329 of 2009                          1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                CRM No. M-13329 of 2009 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: 02.7.2009

Narinder @ Ninder                                     ...Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Haryana                                      ...Respondent


CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:      Mr. J.V. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
              Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Rajan Gupta, J.

The petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case

registered against him under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506 read with

Section 34 IPC at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala, vide FIR

No.35 dated 25.03.2009.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a Gandasi

blow on the head of the complainant. He attacked the complainant

alongwith other accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though

the petitioner may have been armed with a Gandasi, he only caused a

simple injury. No injury under Section 307 IPC can be attributed to the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for

anticipatory bail on the ground that accused in the FIR are habitual
CRM No. M-13329 of 2009 2

offenders and there are other cases registered against them. According

to the counsel, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for

taking the investigation to its logical end.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

It is evident that the petitioner alongwith other accused

attacked the complainant and caused number of injuries to him. The

petitioner, who was armed with a Gandasi, tried to hit the petitioner on

the head. However, the complainant raised his hand to save himself due

to which he did not get a fatal injury on his head. Instead he received an

injury on his wrist.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider

it a fit case for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. The allegations against him are serious. His custodial

interrogation may be required.

The petition is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
July 02, 2009
‘rajpal’