Mahabir vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of the present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No. 39 dated 18.3.2014 under sections 341, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C. (section 307 I.P.C. added later on), registered at Police Station, Rajound, District Kaithal.

On 16.5.2014, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court:-

Learned counsel for the petitioners would, inter alia, contend that it is a case of version and cross-version. The petitioners were earlier arrested and released on bail. However, the offence u/s 307 IPC has been added thereafter and as such the petitioners are apprehending arrest even though willing to join investigation.

Notice of motion, returnable for 11.07.2014.

In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and they shall remain bound by the conditions as envisaged u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Learned State counsel upon instructions from S.I. Narender Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioners have since joined investigation.

However, State counsel would oppose the present petition by contending that even though, the F.I.R. had been initially registered under sections 341, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C., yet, at the subsequent stage offence u/s 307 I.P.C. has been added and the injury suffered by injured Vikram that has attracted offence u/s 307 I.P.C., is attributed to the present petitioner No. 1. State counsel would submit that under such circumstances the grant of concession of anticipatory bail would not be warranted.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that the present petition deserves acceptance.

It has gone uncontroverted that the alleged occurrence is stated to be of 17.3.2014. Petitioner No. 1 was arrested and had been released on bail on 24.3.2014. Likewise petitioner No. 2 had been arrested and released on bail on 21.3.2014. It so transpires that injured Vikram had been admitted to P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh on 18.3.2014 and had been duly discharged on 20.3.2014. As per police report dated 2.5.2014 the case summary was received from P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh on 22.4.2014 in which the doctor had opined that the injuries received by injured Vikram to be dangerous to life on account of which offence u/s 307 I.P.C. had been added.

In view of the factual position, noticed herein above and coupled with the fact that both the petitioners have joined investigation, this Court is of the considered view that their custodial interrogation would not be warranted. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 16.5.2014, passed by this Court, is made absolute.

Petition disposed of.