High CourtsSingle Bench

Sahil Pruthi vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 October 2021 · Citation: (2021) 10 P&H CK 0018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 308, 323, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 34303 Of 2021 (O&M)
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

8 paragraphs · 498 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No. 107, dated 3.5.2021, Police Station Pehowa City, Kurukshetra, under Sections 308, 323, 506, 34 IPC.

2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Happy wherein it has been alleged that on 2.5.2021 a quarrel had taken place between him and his wife Richu Rani but later a compromise was effected. It is alleged that on 3.5.2021 his wife Richu Rani made a telephone call to her parental family and thereafter his brother-in-law Sunny, Sahil, father-in-law Kewal reached at the shop of his uncle in vegetable market, Pehowa, where they called the complainant. The complainant along with his cousin Sachin and his wife went to his uncle's shop where the accused were present. It is alleged that Sahil gave a slap to him while Sunny, Kewal and Richu Rani started beating him. During the course of said scuffle, outside the shop, Sahil took out a baseball bat from his car and hit him on his head. The complainant was however, rescued by his cousin Sachin and other neighbors upon which the accused left from the spot while issuing threats. The complainant was initially taken to Government Hospital, Pehowa from where he was referred to LMJP Hospital, Kurukshetra.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case and that the car in question from which the petitioner is alleged to have taken out a baseball bat does not belong to him and it belongs to co-accused Sunny who has already been granted interim bail. Learned counsel submits that it is in fact a case of some kind of matrimonial discord between complainant and his wife and that the instant FIR has been lodged simply to pressurize the in-laws family of the complainant.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that since the MLR clearly shows two lacerated wounds on the frontal region of the forehead of the complainant, it is apparent that the blows had been given by the petitioner with a murderous intention. A prayer has thus been made for dismissal of the petition.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6.

It apparently appears to be a dispute which has arisen out of some kind of matrimonial discord amongst the complainant and his wife. However, even if there is any kind of matrimonial discord, the same would not justify causing of injuries to anyone. In the instant case, the in-laws family of the complainant had come together and had caused injuries to the complainant. The petitioner is attributed injury on the vital part of the complainant i.e. on the forehead with the help of a baseball bat. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any special case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7.

The petition is sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed.