MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that at the time when the first bail application was decided it had not been contended on behalf of the applicant that he was of 17 years of age at the time when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, and that, a cross case for the offence under Sec. 30, IPC, was also under investigation against the complainant party and a decree was already pas ed in favour of the applicant-accused, wherein the complainant party was restrained not to raise any construction but the complainant party on the day of occurrence was raising some construction even after the decree of injunction passed by the competent court.

(3.) The learned counsel further submitted that in the statement of Om Prakash, it has come on record that initially the accused-applicant did not inflict any injury on any of the persons from the complainant party. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that it is just possible that the accused-applicant might have inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased only when he and his father were attacked by the complainant party. Then, the learned counsel submitted that it has not been disputed that the accused applicant and his father sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant party some of the injuries on the person of Chandra Mohan father of the accused-applicant were by sharp weapon and that was the reason that a case against the complainant party has been registered under Sec. 307, Penal Code which is under investigation