ROHTASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rohtash, accused in FIR No.106 dated 02.04.2020 registered at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 188, 294, 323, 452, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code prays for grant of bail, pending trial.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per version of the injured/complainant and his mother, petitioner gave a rod blow on head of the complainant in a fight that took place on 01.04.2020. It is further argued that as per medico legal report of the injured prepared in Civil Hospital, Jhajjar where the complainant and his mother are working, there is one injury in the form of reddish abrasion at the back of head and throat area and the other two injuries are complaint of pain. The complainant was referred to Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha (Hisar) and a report was made by doctor there that no external injury is visible on head and neck. Later, the complainant was shifted to Sarvodya Hospital and on the basis of NCCT head, it was reported that he had fracture right temporal bone and fronto parietal bone. It is further argued that complainant was discharged from Sarvodya Hospital on 08.04.2020 and thereafter he was never admitted to any hospital for treatment of injury(s). The last submission made by counsel is that this Court made an order for examination of the complainant on 25.11.2020 but the same could not be completed as an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') was filed for summoning an additional accused and the same is still pending for consideration of the Court. In addition, it is argued that the petitioner is ready to face proceedings in accordance with law when otherwise conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time.

(3.) Counsel for State assisted by counsel for the complainant has seriously opposed the application for grant of bail with the submission that the petitioner caused injury resulting in fracture right temporal bone and fronto parietal bone. It is further argued that the complainant is still under medication and he would be requiring to take medicine throughout his life. He would pray that pending conclusion of cross examination of the complainant, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.