Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Sabharwal @ Rohit vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31045-2024
DECIDED ON: 03.07.2024
ROHIT SABHARWAL @ ROHIT
sacs PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
cases RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (QRAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.243,
dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 325, 326, 506 and 34 IPC,
registered at Police Station Gate Hakima, District Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of narrated
facts in the FIR contends that no such occurrence has ever taken place and in
fact it is a case of no injury whatsoever attributed to the petitioner, hence, he
has been falsely implicated therein just to settle the personal grudge by the
complainant. It is also pointed out that the complainant was actually having
a dispute with co-accused Deva Nand and on that account, the petitioner and
co-accused Deva Nand alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant
but there is no medico legal report and incriminatory material available to
corroborate the said allegation.
Notice of motion.
POONAM NEGI
2024.07.03 18:51
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and on instructions from
ASI Nishan Singh submits that the petitioner was armed with datar and has
given a blow on the right side of head but could not refer to the nature of
injury.
Be that as it may, even if the contention of the State counsel is
taken to be correct it cannot be believed that a sharp-edged weapon like
datar if hit on the head would not cause any kind of injury thereupon and at
the best only the bruises are being stated to be present on the head.
It is only after CT Scan, the evidence under Section 326 IPC
was added meaning thereby no visible injury on the head is available which
can be termed to be dangerous to life and grievous in nature at this stage to
deny the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Since the occurrence of the
incident itself has been denied by the petitioner while seeking anticipatory
bail, as such, this petition deserves to be allowed for the reason that even the
injury referred to is not very clear from the medico legal report despite CT
Scan conducted on the head of the complainant.
Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory
bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer
concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of
personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by
the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
POONAM NEGI
2024.07.03 18:51
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not
comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one
week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands
cancelled.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.07.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
POONAM NEGI
2024.07.03 18:51
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
