RAM MEHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the above mentioned three petitions, Ram Mehar, Naresh, Naveen and Satish, the petitioners have sought prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 45 dated 26.02.2012 at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 325 and 506 read with section 149 IPC.

(2.) To begin with, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to FIR No.43 dated 24.02.2012 registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh. According to him, this FIR was lodged by the petitioner Ram Mehar about the same occurrence. According to him, his FIR, therefore, is first in time. According to him, though many persons were named as accused in this FIR, the police proceeded against two namely Bijender and Anil and one of them was granted anticipatory bail while the other was granted regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has then submitted that two days thereafter, on 26.02.2012 Anil Kumar , accused lodged FIR No.45 dated 26.02.2012 against the petitioners. He drew my attention to the MLR of Anil Kumar, Annexure P-3, where eight injuries are mentioned as having been found on the person of Anil Kumar.

(3.) According to him, only injury no.1 which is a lacerated contusion 6 cm x 0.5 cm on middle part of parietal bone was kept for x-ray. He then drew my attention to first x-ray report (Annexure P-4) of Anil Kumar prepared at General Hospital, Mahendergarh where injury no.1 was also found to have no bony injury. He then drew my attention to Annexure P-5 where in the examination of the head, it was found that there was fracture of right zygomatic arch. According to him, this document makes it clear that Anil Kumar remained hospitalized from 24.02.2012 to 26.02.2012 only. He further drew my attention to Annexure P-6 where on the notes of PGI MS Rohtak opinion was sought from the doctor at CHC Kanina. Noticing the fracture of zygomatic arch, the doctor at Kanina on 31.03.2012 has opined that possibility of this injury being dangerous to life could not be ruled out. According to him, Annexure P-7 was another application made to the doctor at CHC Kanina where again it was mentioned that the injury could be dangerous to life. According to him, the police persisted in its efforts to get a clear report that the injury was dangerous to life and it succeeded in getting this report on 22.04.2012 vide Annexure P-8.