Pankaj Sood vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5818 Del

              *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: 8th December, 2010

                                 Date of Order: December 21, 2010

                                   + Bail Appln. No.1814/2010
%                                                                              21.12.2010
         Pankaj Sood                                                  ...Petitioner

         Versus

         State                                                        ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. Ritesh Bahri for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent with Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. for complainant


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                              ORDER

1. This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner/

applicant for grant of anticipatory bail who was booked under Section 308 of IPC. The

contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was

complainant who was in drunken condition and the present FIR was counterblast to the

complaint lodged by the petitioner on 8th August 2010 against the complainant.

2. The incident in which the accused/ petitioner is involved seems to be road-rage

incident. The vehicle of the complainant dashed against petitioner's car. As per the

allegations, the petitioner/applicant thereafter started abusing the complainant and when

complainant tried to stop him, the accused took out a beer bottle from his car, broke it

and hit the complainant with it on his face, head, neck, shoulder resulting into serious

Bail Appln. 1814/2010 Page 1 Of 2 injuries on his person. A perusal of MLC would show that the injuries on the person of

complainant were grievous, sharp with ragged margins. The counsel for complainant and

State counsel has placed on record photographs of the injuries suffered by the

complainant. A perusal of these photographs clearly shows that the complainant was

brutally hit repeatedly by the broken bottle resulting cut wounds on the entire face

starting from forehead, near the eyes, ear, cheeks and shows that the wounds were not

superficial deep quite deep. The complainant was initially taken to Mool Chand Hospital,

perhaps by the accused, where the accused left him and ran away. From Mool Chand

Hospital, the complainant was removed to a hospital in Gurgaon. He had to undergo

surgery and stitches on different parts of face and remained hospitalized for considerable

time.

3. Considering the above facts, I find it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.

December 21, 2010                                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Bail Appln. 1814/2010                                                                  Page 2 Of 2