An accused may be granted bail if no specific allegations are made against them in serious assault cases, particularly where prolonged detention is evident.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.221 dated 09.09.2023 under Sections 148 , 149, 302, 307, 323, 325, 506, 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Kanina, District Mahendergarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2023. As per the FIR, the petitioner along with a number of other co-accused, allegedly attacked the complainant party, including the deceased, using weapons such as axes, iron rods and sticks. However, as per the learned counsel, the medical evidence, including the medico-legal report and the post- mortem report of the deceased, reveals that the deceased sustained only three injuries, i.e. one on the head and two other injuries on his forehead and near his shoulder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that if multiple accused had indeed attacked the deceased with lethal weapons, as alleged, it is improbable that the deceased would have sustained only these limited injuries. It has also been argued that the occurrence took place in open fields, and the petitioner side also suffered injuries, including injuries which were declared dangerous to life, for which a separate complaint/FIR was lodged.

4. It has still further been submitted by the learned counsel that while the petitioner is named in the FIR, no specific injury or role is attributed to him. The complainant party has sought to implicate multiple persons without clear allegations. Moreover, learned counsel has asserted that the proceedings before the trial Court have been delayed, as only 01 out of 27 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution which is pending and the complainant is repeatedly seeking adjournments, as a result of which the trial has not progressed. In support, learned counsel has placed on record the zimni orders of the trial Court, wherein it stands reflected that the counsel for the complainant has not been advancing arguments on the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as a result of which the trial Court has been adjourning the case repeatedly.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, by arguing that the case is based on an eye-witness account and that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. It has been submitted that although no specific injury or role was initially assigned to the petitioner, however, the lacerated wound on the head of the deceased was later found to have been inflicted by the petitioner with a stick. On specific queries, it is not disputed that (i) the deceased sustained only three injuries, two of which were on non-vital parts, (ii) the petitioner side also sustained injuries, (iii) it is a case of version and cross-version, (iv) the occurrence took place in open fields and (v) the complainant party has been repeatedly taking adjournments before the trial Court as a result of which arguments on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have not been advanced till date. However, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, which stands reproduced hereunder:

“Subject: Assault and giving threat to kill. Sir, it is requested that I Irfan son of Shri Babu Khan am resident of Village Bhojawas Police Station Kanina District Mahendergarh and am doing labour work. That yesterday on dated 08.09.2023 time at around 05:30 PM in the evening Nasim son of Aas Mohammad a