CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 P&H CK 0650

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajan Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 325
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-6037 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

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

5 paragraphs · 335 words

Rajan Gupta, J.—This order shall dispose of aforementioned two petitions filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the Petitioners vide FIR No. 271 dated 28.12.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 341 and 148/149 IPC at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kuruskshetra.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that Petitioners have no concern with the alleged occurrence and have been implicated due to factionalism in the village. He, thus, submits that Petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

4.

The FIR was lodged on the statement of Randhir Singh who stated that on 21.12.2010, he along with Suresh, Brijesh and one boy of the village was playing cards. At that time there was a quarrel between Suresh and Brijesh. Some days thereafter i.e. on 27.12.2010 when he (complainant) was coming back from duty on his motorcycle, he was accosted by the accused at about 5.30 p.m. At that time, Balwinder Singh and Jitinder Singh were armed with swords and others with bindas. In the assault that took place, ten injuries were caused on the person of Randhir Singh, eight of which were declared grievous. The Petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries with bindas. The injuries suffered by the injured Randhir Singh in the occurrence was fracture right ulna, fracture left ulna, fracture proximal phalanx little finger right hand, fracture proximal phalanx index finger right hand, fracture proximal phalanx left thumb, fracture right patella and right tibia and fracture lower end of left femur.

5.

In view of nature of injuries caused, I am of the considered view that Petitioners are not entitled to concession of bail. The manner in which injuries have been inflicted resulting in multiple fractures, I am of the considered view that arming the Petitioners with a protective order would be travesty of justice. On the other hand, their custodial interrogation is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end Dismissed.