SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Naresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Ut Chandigarh - Respondent
Cr M M No. 19770 of 2021
Decided On : 16-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Nitin Sharma, Advocate, Sumit Jain, Advocate

The seriousness of the offence and lack of change in circumstances are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Serious Offence - Denial of Bail

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of demanding money from the complainant, threatening to kill her, and causing burn injuries to her. The petitioner sought bail, claiming false implication and changed circumstances.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the allegations to be serious, with medical records showing the complainant's grievous injuries. It noted no change in circumstances since the previous bail petition was withdrawn and denied bail to the petitioner.

Issues: Seriousness of the offence, medical evidence, change in circumstances, delay in FIR registration

Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the offence and lack of change in circumstances influenced the court's decision to deny bail.

Final Decision: The bail petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that its observations should not be considered as an expression of opinion on the case's merits.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. This is the second regular bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in FIR No.0128 dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 324, 342, 326/A and 506 IPC registered at Police Station South Sector 34, Chandigarh.

3. The first petition under Section 439 CrPC (CRM-M-25351- 2020) was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.09.2020.

4. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant and the petitioner were living together in a live-in-relationship. The petitioner used to demand money from the complainant for drinking liquor and when she refused he used to beat her. On the night of 06/07.07.2020 at around midnight the petitioner came to the room and demanded 2000/- from the complainant and when the complaint refused because she did not have the money, the petitioner threatened to kill her and claimed that he was tired of her. In the morning the complainant again told the petitioner about her having no money on which the petitioner opened a bottle of hand sanitizer lying in the room and emptied it on the complainant's face and clothes, took out a lighter from his pocket and lighted it and brought it next to the complainant leading to her clothes, face, neck and some hair immediately catching fire. The complainant screamed and since there was no help coming she wrapped herself in a blanket lying in the room and put out the fire. The petitioner did not allow the complainant to leave the room and for the entire day kept scaring the complainant to kill her. The same day at about 5.00 pm when the pain because of the burns became unbearable the complainant gathered strength and after pushing the petitioner reached the hospital in Sector 45 Chandigarhwho referred her to GMCH 32 from where, after treatment, the complainant came back home. According to the complainant she could not get her statement recorded earlier due to pain and burning sensation.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant has levelled false allegations against the petitioner, there is a gap of three days between the alleged incident and the lodging of the FIR, the petitioner's father is unwell and he is the only family member who can look after him and that hand sanitizer is not an acid. He has also argued that the complainant has got married to another man and drew the attention of the Court to certain photographs (Annexure P-3). He has also contended that after the withdrawal of the first petition for regular bail the circumstances have changed as the investigation stands completed and final report under Section 173 CrPC has been presented in Court.

6. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition and has relied upon the averments made in the affidavit dated 05.07.2021 of Shri Rajiv Kumar, SHO Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. In the affidavit it is inter-alia averred that the DDR was registered on 07.07.2020 and the FIR was registered on 10.07.2021 after the victim was fit to make statement. It is also stated in the affidavit that the MLR of the victim (complainant) was conducted as per which there were 20% burn injuries which are grievous in nature. The medical record of the complainant has been attached with the affidavit. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was arrested on 10.07.2020, the challan has been prepared against the petitioner and has been submitted in Court on 08.09.2020 though the charges are yet to be framed. There are 22 witnesses of which none has been examined. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC has been recorded and she has supported her case and complaint. It is argued that the petitioner if released on bail may influence the witnesses.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case the petitioner is accused of a serious offence. The medical record of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top