SUSHEEL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury caused by the petitioner to Balbir Singh-complainant has been described as simple in nature. He further contends that Darshan Singh to whom an injury has been attributed as dangerous to life was the intervener and the said injury is only 2 cm x 0.75 cm on the left side of the abdomen which cannot be said to be dangerous to life.

(2.) IN response, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the main accused and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is in custody since 5.5.2003 and the trial in the case is held up as Sham Lal, co-accused has been beaten up by the complainant side and is admitted in the hospital. It is debatable whether the injury attributed by the petitioner on the person of Darshan Singh can be said to be dangerous to life at this stage considering the fact that it is 2 cm x 0.75 cm on the left side of the abdomen besides it is a case of cross version and it is to be determined as to which party is the aggressor.