Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Gaurav Baisla - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-44083-2021
Decided On : 24-01-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Ganesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana; Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the injuries, the nature of the weapon used, and the stage of the investigation/trial are crucial factors to consider when granting bail. The court also emphasized the need for parity between co-accused when considering bail applications.

Headnote:
Bail - Grant of Bail - Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 427, 429, 307, 506 IPC - The court considered the seriousness of the injuries, the nature of the weapon used, and the stage of the investigation/trial in granting bail to the accused. The court also emphasized the need for parity between co-accused when considering bail applications. The Supreme Court's decision in 'Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and another' was cited to highlight the importance of not granting bail solely based on the type of weapon used, especially in cases involving life-threatening injuries.
Fact of the Case:

The petitions sought to cancel the bail granted to the accused, who were part of an unlawful assembly and charged with serious offenses under various sections of the IPC. The injuries inflicted were deemed life-threatening, and the petitioners argued that the grant of bail was not justified given the severity of the offenses and the stage of the investigation/trial.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the grant of bail to the accused was not justified, considering the seriousness of the injuries, the nature of the weapon used, and the stage of the investigation/trial. The court emphasized the need for parity between co-accused when considering bail applications and set aside the orders granting bail to the accused as perverse.
Issues: The issues revolved around the justification of the grant of bail to the accused, the seriousness of the offenses, the nature of the injuries, and the stage of the investigation/trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the injuries, the nature of the weapon used, and the stage of the investigation/trial. The court also emphasized the need for parity between co-accused when considering bail applications.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders granting bail to the accused as perverse and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within a specified period.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - By this common order two petitions, which arise out of the same FIR are being disposed of.

2. The prayer in these petitions is for cancelling the bail which has been granted to the private respondents/accused by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was got registered against the private respondents bearing FIR No.443 dated 19.07.2021 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 427, 429, 307 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ballabgarh City, District Faridabad. Learned counsel argues that the injuries which the victim has received are life threatening and have been inflicted on the head of one of the victims but still, without taking into consideration the injuries inflicted upon the victims, as well as the fact that private respondents were part of an unlawful assembly with specific allegations of inflicting injury against them, private respondents have been extended the concession of regular bail by the Court below by merely considering the nature of weapon attributed to them i.e. dandas and the accusation of giving fist blows and that too, at a stage where the challan has only been presented after the grant of bail to the respondents/accused and the material witnesses including complainants/victims are yet to be examined.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the injuries received by the victims are life threatening and one of the victim has received injuries on the head and as, the private respondent/accused were part of the unlawful assembly with specific allegations against them of inflicting injuries upon the victims, merely by noticing the fact that the respondent/accused were only armed with danda and attributed blow with the said weapon along with fist injuries and were not required by the Investigating Agency for further investigation as of now, though the said ground is not sufficient enough ground for the trial Court to grant the concession of bail to the private respondents given the seriousness of the offence they are charged with.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents/accused submits that though, the victim received life threatening injuries one of which is on the head of a victim which fact has been supported by the medical opinion, but as, the role attributed to the petitioner is only to have inflicted injuries with dandas and fist blows and not the grievous injuries received by the victims, the grant of regular bail by the Court below is perfectly valid and needs no interference by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. In the present cases, after receipt of the medical opinion, the injuries found on the person of the victims were opined to be life threatening and grave enough so as to invoke Section 307 of IPC. Besides this Section 149 IPC has been invoked in the present FIR, i.e. constituting unlawful assembly and the private respondents have been arraigned as part of the same.

7. While considering the prayer for the grant of bail, the Court has to see various aspects including the allegations alleged against the said accused, weapon and the injuries attributed, the stage of the investigation/trial as the case may be. The Court has to ensure that the grant of bail to an accused shall not hamper either in the investigation or the trial and while considering the prayer of the accused for the grant of bail, the allegations alleged against the accused has to be kept in mind. Mere incarceration for a particular period, ignoring the other relevant facts, cannot be a ground for grant of bail.

8. Further, wherever, the prayer of the accused for the grant of bail is based upon the fact that other co-accused has been granted the concession of regular bail, the Court has to ensure that there exist a parity between the accused seeking bail with the co-accused who has been granted bail in respect of the allegations alleged. Bail to an a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document