Punjab-Haryana High Court
Israil vs State Of Haryana on 13 December, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.50250 of 2013
and
Criminal Misc. No.M-35701 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:13.12.2013
Israil
...Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for
the respondent-State.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Cr. Misc. No.50250 of 2013:
For the reasons stated in the criminal miscellaneous application, Annexures-P.4 to P.7 attached with the application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-35701 of 2013:
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.316 dated 7.10.2012 registered at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat for the offences under Sections 307, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 506, 454, 380 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.Parmar Harpal Singh
2013.12.16 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-35701 of 2013 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the cheek and the doctor, as per MLR, has stated that the injury is with blunt weapon.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana opposed the bail petition and stated that keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State.
As per prosecution version, the present petitioner Israil has fired from a pistol and Wahid sustained the fire arm injury on his right eye. As per Annexure-P.4 the dimension of this injury is 0.25 x 0.25 cm superficial abrasion on the right cheek and with blunt weapon, but as per FIR this injury was given by the petitioner with a fire arm weapon.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case that the petitioner was armed with a fire arm weapon and he gave the injury near the eye of Wahid and there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. December 13, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.12.16 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh