BACHITTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner-Bachittar Singh, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 160 dated 19.6.2010 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sirsa, under Section 307 IPC. He has averred therein that he has been falsely implicated. He is physically handicapped and is suffering from 70% disability of the right hand. In fact, on the date of the occurrence at about 5.30 a.m., he was sleeping in his house, when he was attacked by Vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar-respondents, who broke his left arm, rendering him totally helpless and thereafter, they tried to throw him into a well. However, when he was being taken to the well, he raised alarm, which attracted the neighbours and on seeing them, the said respondents escaped from the spot. He was admitted in the government hospital, Sirsa at 9.50 a.m. A fracture was detected in his left radius.

(2.) This FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Viond Kumar. He came out with the version that on 19.6.2010 at about 6 a.m., he himself and his brother Ashok Kumar were standing outside their shed, when the present petitioner was seen coming from the side of his tubewell, holding a kapa in his hand. He threatened to teach them a lesson and thereafter gave a blow with the help of that kapa on the head of Ashok Kumar with an intention to kill him. As a result of the receipt of that blow, Ashok Kumar fell down and the complainant raised an alarm, which attracted his family members and the petitioner escaped from the spot. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a handicapped person, who was attacked by Vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar with the help of lathis causing fracture of his left arm and in order to make a defence, false FIR was got registered against him. For the injuries, so caused to the petitioner, he was treated in the hospital and he also came out with a cross version against them. It is a case of false implication and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(3.) On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in fact, it was the petitioner, who attacked the complainant party and caused injury on the head of Ashok Kumar with the help of a sharp edged weapon, which was found to be dangerous to life. The petitioner has come out with a false cross version and no such injury was caused to him by the complainant-party. In fact, he received the injury while riding the motor-cycle and falling from the same. He is trying to take the benefit of his disability, though he was physically capable of causing blow with the help of the kapa.