PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS ' learned counsel contends that two similarly situated accused persons, namely, Soni and Neeraj, have already been granted bail by the High Court. The injuries alleged to have been caused by these three boys, who came on a scooter, were not found in the Medico-legal report. Copy of the First Information Report and Medicolegal Report are produced for perusal. He also contends that two accused persons named in the First Information Report were arrested on 20.1.1997 and 17.1.1997; other two accused were arrested on 22.1.1997. As they were not produced with muffled faces, their identification parade was not allowed to be held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereby the prosecution has deprived them of this right. He also contends that no injury was found on the buttock of the injured as is evident from the Medico-legal Report. He also contends that the First Information Report is lodged by Sanjay; Balwinder accompanied him, but still neither the number of the scooter on which these three boys are alleged to have come, is given in the First Information Report nor the description of these three boys is given in the First Information Report. On all these counts, Mr. Cheema claims bail for the petitioner.

(2.) THE complainant's learned counsel contends that on misrepresentation of facts, bail petition of co-accused Soni and Neeraj was pressed. From the Medico-legal Report it is evident that the injuries were found on buttock as well as back side of hand, but on the basis of misrepresentation the facts, bail petitions of Soni and Neeraj were allowed by the High Court. He contends that out of five eyewitnesses, only Balwinder Singh and Sanjay are required to be examined now; three other eye-witnesses have already been won over by the accused and they have been given up by the prosecution. The accused persons have given threats to the witnesses. He also pointed out that earlier on 20/21.11.1997 all the eye witnesses were present except the complainant but as the accused Surinder became unwell in the Court, none of the witnesses could be examined. On 21.3.1998 again these witnesses were present, but an objection was raised by the learned defence counsel that all the witnesses be examined on the same date; therefore witnesses could not be examined on this date as well as now the case is adjourned to 23.5.1988 for examination of these eye witnesses, namely, Balwinder, Sanjay and other witnesses.