SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.259 dated 13.06.2020 at Police Station Narnaund, District Hansi, Haryana, under Sections 307, 34, 365, 506 IPC.

(2.) The FIR was registered at the instance of Kuldeep, wherein it is alleged that on 13.06.2020 when he was present in his fields, then Rampati along with her two sons Sanjay and Binder and also Sunil son of Dharampal were present in the adjacent fields carrying 'Baton', stick and 'Kasola'. It is alleged that the said persons attacked the complainant and while Sunil gave blow with 'Kasola' on his waist, Sanjay gave a blow with 'Baton' on the right feet of the complainant. Binder is stated to have caused injury with the 'Baton' on his left leg. Rampati is alleged to have caught the complainant from the front side while the other gave beatings to the complainant indiscriminately. It is further alleged that Rampati exhorted her companions to eliminate the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant was forced in a white coloured vehicle and while they were travelling in the said vehicle, accused were saying that the complainant be thrown in the canal. Since there was no water in the canal, he was thrown on the footpath. After throwing the complainant on the footpath, Binder, Sanjay and Rampati told Sunil to run over the vehicle over the complainant and accordingly in order to kill the complainant, Sunil ran over the vehicle over the complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that in case even if the contents of the FIR are taken to be correct, the petitioner cannot be attributed any injury in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC. It has further been submitted that all the injuries are on the non-vital parts and that the alleged three grievous injuries out of the 13 injuries, which were found on the person of the injured, are stated to be on finger, upper arm and wrist of the injured. The learned counsel has further submitted that although it is alleged that the petitioner had run over his vehicle over the injured, but the medical opinion belies the said allegation.