BABITA @ KAVITA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dtd. 22/4/2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide which respondent No.2-accused was extended the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.61 dtd. 22/3/2024 under Ss. 307, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, on grounds of alleged non-application of mind and improper appreciation of the gravity of the offence by the learned trial Court while enlarging the accused on anticipatory bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations, specifically the charge that the respondent No.2 (accused) attempted to drive a tractor over the petitioner while she was working in the fields. Though the petitioner admittedly did not suffer any serious injuries except for a simple injury, it is argued that the intention of respondent No.2 was to commit murder, and the existence of prior enmity between the parties allegedly formed the motive behind this act. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite and submitted that the allegations are baseless and the result of pre-existing hostility between the parties. It has been pointed out that previous complaints were made by the petitioner party, all of which were found to be false upon inquiry, save for one instance that merely resulted in a preventive action under Ss. 107/151 of the Cr.P.C. Further, it is submitted that since the grant of bail, respondent No.2 has neither been involved in any subsequent criminal activity nor has he misused the liberty granted to him in any manner-by threatening the petitioner, tampering with evidence, or otherwise breaching the conditions imposed upon him while being granted bail.