Ajay Bansal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral)

Heard.

According to the prosecution, Mr. Vinod Gupta (injured) who is an advocate practising at Hissar was coming to the court along with son and clerk on 18.12.1998 at about 10 a.m. in his car. Mr. Ajay Bansal (accused) petitioner who is also an advocate, with two persons was seen standing on the side of the road. On seeing the car of Mr. Vinod Gupta coming, one of them threw stone on his car. When he (Vinod Gupta) came out of his car, Ajay Bansal shouted that he is "Vinod Gupta, Advocate". One of the persons wielded khukhari towards his son. To ward off the blow, Vinod Gupta raised his right hand and the blow injured the back of his right fore arm. Vinod Gupta brought the matter to the notice of the District Bar Association, Hissar. Thereupon, urgent meeting of the general house of the Bar was called and the house condemned the attack on the advocate. Mr. Vinod Gupta made statement to the police which formed the basis of this FIR wherein he stated that Ajay Bansal and two more persons were standing by the side of the road and those boys were in the age group of 2530 years. Ajay Bansal pointed towards his car, then one of the boys who was wearing blue jacket threw a stone on his car. They stopped the car and after coming out of the car, Vinod Gupta asked them as to why the stone was thrown on his car. Ajay Bansal was having a 1 feet long khukhari in his hand and he came forward and wielded khukhari towards his neck. To ward off the blow, he raised his right hand. Khukhari blow fell on the back of his right fore arm creating corresponding cut in his coat and shirt.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the version which Vinod Gupta made to District Bar Association, Hissar, he did not accuse Ajay Bansal as having dealt khukhari blow on him. He accused his companion as having dealt blow on him. In the later version made by him to the police, he accused Ajay Bansal as having dealt khukhari blow to him which fell on the back of his right fore arm. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far there is nothing to suggest that the injury found by the doctor on the medical examination of Vinod Gupta was dangerous to life. He submits that back of the right fore arm is not a vital part. He further submits that the petitioner, who is an advocate, has remained in custody for about one month and now he is on interim bail allowed to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar on account of the illness of his wife. He submits that 21/4 months have passed and it would not be just to send him in jail as sending him to jail now will serve no cause.

Petitioner is an advocate. Injured Vinod Gupta is also an advocate. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also to the fact that there will be further embitterment in their relations, if bail is not allowed to Ajay Bansal, I feel bail should be allowed to him. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hissar.