PURAN MAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent no. 2 (Mahesh Kumar) is an accused in a case for offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The bail application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected by the Trial Court on two occasions. Thereafter, the High Court has allowed the bail application of the respondent no. 2. The complainant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition questioning legality of the order granting bail to the respondent no.2.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, who was the brother of the complainant/appellant, had received fatal injuries and died between the night intervening 16/17/6/2020. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking, in substance, cancellation of the order granting bail is that there was a long standing rivalry between the deceased and the respondent no. 2 and on 16/6/2020 evening itself there was a scuffle between the two in which the deceased had received injuries and he had lodged a complaint in his own handwriting with the police station at 08.00 p.m. (which was registered subsequently on the next date). After lodging FIR, the deceased had gone to the hospital for treatment. It is contended that the respondent no. 2 also reached the hospital and according to the appellant, the call records would show that he called his son to the hospital who then attacked the deceased with knife causing grievous injuries on account of which the deceased expired. It is further submitted that in this background the bail applications of the respondent no. 2 were twice rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court has granted the bail without considering these aspects and without assigning any cogent reasons. It is also submitted that after being released on bail there are allegations against the respondent no. 2 threatening the family members of the deceased. It is also contended that the charges have now been framed against the respondent no. 2 under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC. Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana has supported the case of the appellant and submitted that when twice the bail has been rejected by the Trial Court with detailed reasons, the High Court ought to have given proper reasons for granting bail and could not have passed the order without assigning such reasons.