Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Kumar Alias Raju vs State Of Punjab on 2 August, 2024
CRM-M-29048-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.209
Case No. : CRM-M-29048-2024
Date of Decision : August 02, 2024
Rajiv Kumar@ Raju .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Avneet, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.10 dated 03.02.2024, under
Sections 324, 307 IPC, 1860 (Section 326 IPC added later on), registered at
Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar (Rural).
2. As per the allegations, the FIR in question was registered on the
basis of statement made by one Avtar Singh aged 72 years, wherein he
submitted that he and his son namely Harpreet Singh @ Rimmy run a shop
in the name of Fancy Silk Store at Railway Road, Bhagpur and in their
adjoining street, petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Raju also runs a scissors
sharpening and iron-boxes shop. The petitioner used to stand in front of the
shop of complainant along with other boys and create noise in routine, which
used to effect the complainant's business. It has been further stated that on
02.02.2024, at about 10:15 AM, the complainant went to the petitioner's
shop in order to make him understand for not creating noise outside his shop
but the petitioner, instead of understanding the problem of complainant due
to his behaviour, started abusing him. Upon hearing the noise, Harpreet
Singh @ Rimmy also came there and tried to convince the petitioner for not
using abusive language but he did not agree and rather gave a scissors blow
to Harpreet Singh @ Rimmy, which hit him on the left side of his chest. So,
he fell down while bleeding. On this, complainant raised alarm, whereupon
his nephew Prabhjot Singh and other shopkeepers came for his help. The
petitioner fled from the spot. As the condition of complainant's son was
quite serious, he was rushed to hospital and was got admitted. It has been
alleged that the petitioner picked up quarrel with complainant and his son
only because of the reason that he was estopped from making noise outside
the shop of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted
that it is a case of version and cross-version. On the statement of the
petitioner, DDR No.31 dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC
was registered against the complainant party at the same Police Station. The
petitioner has put forth a different story that 02.02.2024, at about 11:00 AM,
complainant Avtar Singh came to his shop and pressurized him to change his
working times as his customers were being disturbed due to sound coming
from the shop of petitioner. In reply, it was stated by the petitioner that he
was doing his business since long and was the only source of his income. On
this, complainant started abusing the petitioner and he was told not to do so,
he slapped the petitioner. In the meantime, son of the complainant Harpreet
Singh also entered his shop, pushed him to the floor and started giving kick
blows and danda blows. He also inflicted a blow of sharp edged weapon on
the left arm of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner received injury on
his left arm and blood started oozing. When the petitioner raised alarm, both
- the complainant and his son ran away while abusing and threatening the
petitioner. He was also admitted at Civil Hospital, Kala Bakra, where he
was got medico legally examined.
4. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that in order to save their skin, the complainant and his son have
implicated him in the false FIR whereas the reality is that the petitioner
neither picked up any quarrel with them, nor created any nuisance outside
their shop. Moreover, the petitioner is the only bread winner of his family
which includes his widow mother, wife, a daughter aged 14 years and a son
aged 10 years. This is the first case, which has been registered against the
petitioner and that would also take a long time to conclude. The petitioner is
in custody since 09.02.2024. Therefore, the petitioner, who is at the mercy
of this Court, prays for grant of regular bail.
5. Status Report by way of affidavit of Sumit Sood, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Adampur, District Jalandhar (Rural),
on behalf of respondent-State, has been placed on record. Learned State
counsel, while referring to the Status Report, has opposed the bail petition,
while submitting that the son of the complainant namely Harpreet Singh @
Rimmy sustained two injuries on his body and one injury was declared sharp
and grievous. So, offence under Section 326 IPC was also added later on
02.05.2024. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on
08.02.2024 and the scissor used in the crime has been got recovered from
him. The challan has been presented on 02.05.2024 before the concerned
Court. Trial in the case is yet to be commenced and charges have not been
framed yet It is further prayed that the petitioner does not deserve
concession of bail. It has also been admitted that the petitioner himself
suffered three injuries, which were alleged caused by son of the
complainant. However, it was submitted that since the allegations against
the petitioner are quite serious, he does not deserve concession of regular
bail.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned State counsel and have also gone through the case file.
7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he picked up
quarrel with the complainant party, abused them and caused injuries to the
son of the complainant. On the other side, similar version is there on the
side of the petitioner that complainant party came to them, abused and
attacked him. It is clearly a case of version and cross-version. There is no
medical opinion by Civil Surgeon that injury caused by petitoner was
declared dangerous to life. Both sides received injuries. The role of the
petitioner in committing offence and gravity thereof would be a question of
evidence and culpability of the petitioner shall be decided during trial of the
case. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 08/09.02.2024. The
challan in this case has already been presented.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
since completion of trial will take a long time, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for a long time.
8. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,
the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of
learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. Nothing contained herein above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
August 02, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
