SHAKUNTLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cases taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by Smt.Shakuntla @ Babli, aged about 43 years and her son Himanshu, aged about 19 years, residents of village Khijarpur Ahir Majra, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonipat, both of them being accused in FIR No.436 dated 6.10.2019, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC (Sections 307 and 325 IPC added later), registered with Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that on 5.10.2019 at about 7:00 a.m. when complainant Sanjeet along with his father Dharampal had gone to their fields, then Rohtash asked Dharampal to compromise the matter with regard to wall; Dharampal replied that the wall belonged to them, which made Rohtash annoyed and he threatened to kill Dharampal; thereafter Dharampal returned home, whereas his son Sanjeet, the complainant went to attend his duties; at about 8:30 p.m. when the complainant reached his house, then Rambir having an iron pipe, his two sons Himanshu and Abhishek having SUAS (bodkins), wife Shakuntla alias Babli having a wooden baton and daughter Ms.Sheetal empty handed were found giving beatings to Dharampal, father of the complainant; on an alarm being raised by the complainant and others, the assailants ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons; the matter was reported to the police; the injured was removed to hospital; he was medically treated and medico-legally examined. Initially the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 506 IPC and the petitioners/accused were granted pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat. However, after offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC were added, the petitioners had again approached the Court of Sessions at Sonipat for grant of pre-arrest bail in newly added offences. But their such prayer was declined by learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat inasmuch their such application was dismissed vide order 30.1.2020. As such, the petitioners have approached this Court asking for similar relief, which request is being opposed by learned State counsel.