SURESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.235 dtd. 3/8/2020 registered under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC ( Ss. 307, 325 IPC added later on) at Police Station Kherki Daula, Gurugram, Haryana.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case as per the complainant's version, there were three injured persons but the petitioner has been attributed only one injury inflicted upon the complainant Ram Babu allegedly given with a gandasa. It has further been submitted that as per the MLR dtd. 2/8/2020, the said injury is a lacerated wound which was caused by a blunt weapon. Reliance has been placed upon the opinion of the Board of Directors by counsel for the petitioner to state that as per the said Board of Directors, the declaration of the said injury to be "dangerous to life" by the private hospital has not beengiven in accordance with law and the Board had considered it to be "potentially" dangerous to life injury.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab reported as 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 214 to contend that in such like situation, as in the present case, the injury would fall under Sec. 325 IPC and not under Sec. 307 IPC. It has further been submitted that in the present case, one person from the side of accused, i.e. Mahipal was also injured and reference has been made to the MLR dtd. 2/8/2020 (Annexure P-2) of the said Mahipal, who had suffered a lacerated wound of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm over right frontal region and for which the surgeon opinion was also sought. It is further submitted that even as per the complaint dtd. 3/8/2020 given by Mahipal, who is also an accused person, the name of the present petitioner had not been mentioned therein. It has further been submitted that the injured Ram Babu was discharged after a period of 8 days on 10/8/2020 from the hospital and is keeping in good health. It has also been argued that since only one injury has been attributed to the present petitioner, thus, the question as to whether the petitioner had any intention to cause an injury that could attract under Sec. 307 IPC, would also be a matter of trial. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23/8/2020 and out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 13 witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It has further been submitted that earlier application for regular bail was withdrawn on 14/9/2021 and substantial period of custody of more than 4 Yi months has been undergone by the petitioner since then and there are 13 more witnesses to be examined, andthe trial is likely to take time and the said period of custody, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would constitute substantial change of circumstances so as to entitle the petitioner for regular bail.