Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narender Alias Nanhu vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-5700 of 2012
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-5700 of 2012
Date of Decision: 27.04.2012
Narender alias Nanhu ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Present:- Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana
for the State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J(ORAL) Narender alias Nanhu, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 517 dated 05.12.2011 at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323 and 307 read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in this case was lodged by the petitioner himself. According to him, after two days Crl. Misc. No.M-5700 of 2012
--2--
thereof, the cross-version came in the statement of Maha Singh and in that version, the petitioner is alleged to have been there at the spot holding a farsi . He has further submitted that the petitioner is not attributed any blow with the said weapon or with any other weapon. He has further submitted that a similarly placed co-accused of the petitioner in the cross-version named Dharampal has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this court vide orders dated 19.03.2012.
Learned State counsel, on the instructions of SI Japan Singh has admitted that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury to the complainant or to any other person on his side. He has also admitted that Dharampal, co-accused of the petitioner in the cross-version, to whom no injury has been attributed, has been allowed the concession of anticipatory bail by this court.
The fact that the first version comes from the petitioner and the cross-version in which the petitioner has been accused, comes two days thereafter would show that the moot point to be decided by learned trial court would be as to which party is aggressor and which party acted in exercise of right of private defence. The petitioner is not attributed any injury to anyone in the cross-version.
So in this view of the matter, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioner is found to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down under Crl. Misc. No.M-5700 of 2012
--3--
section 438 sub section 2 clauses (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
April 27, 2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE