AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 345 wordsAvneesh Jhingan, J
This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking regular bail in case of FIR No.254 dated 8. 7.2021, under Sections 148, 149, 325, 379- B, 506 and 195-A (Added later on) IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad.
Brief facts are that on 4.7.2021, Chaman (Complainant) along with his friends was sitting inside the office in Jawahar Colony, Dabbu, Luvkush, Jeetu Pandit, Titu, Mogli, brother-in-law of Mogli, Honey and brother of Mogli-Manish and 3-4 other persons armed with iron rods and sticks entered the office. Dabbu gave an iron rod blow on the right leg and Luvkush and Jeetu Pandit also gave iron rod blows on the leg and hand of the complainant. Luvkush and other boy, who was armed with knife type article, gave repeated blows on the leg due to which the leg was seriously injured. All accused dragged the complainant in the street where Tikam Singh alias Titu, Mogli and Manish gave beatings with sticks. It was alleged that Rs.3,100/- was taken out from the pocket of the pant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific injury attributed to the petitioner. Earlier there was a dispute between the complainant's brother-in-law and Luvkush. He further submits that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and he is in custody since 19.7.2021. He further submits that co-accused Tikam Singh alias Titu was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 18.8.2021.
Learned State counsel on instructions opposes the prayer for grant of bail.
Co-accused was granted bail by this Court on 18.8.2021. No recovery is to be made from petitioner, investigation is complete and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Bail is granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
The petition is allowed.
It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.