Multan And Another Petitioners v. The State Of Haryana

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

Multan and his son Pawan seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 319 dated 16.12.2011 at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, for an offence punishable under sections 323, 325 and 506 read with section 34 IPC, to which section 307 IPC was added lateron.

The fields of complainant Virender Kumar share boundary with the fields of Multan, petitioner no. 1. On 11.12.2011 at about 7.30 AM Surender, brother of the complainant went to the fields to bring fodder for the animals. After about one hour, the complainant and his father Krishan Kumar also came to the fields. While the complainant and his brother were cutting fodder, their father Krishan Kumar was irrigating the fields. The complainant heard his father crying for help, on account of which they rushed to the spot and saw Multan and his son Pawan alongwith two other persons beating their father Krishan Kumar. Multan is said to be having a spade (Kassi) in his hand while Pawan was having iron rod and other two persons were having sticks. They saw that their father was lying on the ground and blood was coming out of his forehead. When the complainant and his brother tried to save their father, Pawan gave an iron road blow on the ear of Surender and Multan Singh and the other two unknown persons attacked the complainant, on account of which he received injuries on his head, arms and legs. Their collective noise attracted the attention of some persons including Ishwar, who came to the spot and the assailants escaped threatening them of being killed in future if they again set their feet on the boundary of their fields.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR. According to him, even section 307 IPC was added lateron. He has further submitted that the FIR does not make it clear as to who caused injury to Krishan Kumar, attracting section 307 IPC. He has further submitted that before addition of section 307 IPC, the petitioners were granted regular bail.

Learned State counsel has submitted that Krishan Kumar remained hospitalized for six days. He has admitted that the spade and iron rod have been recovered.

Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that it was Multan, who gave kassi blow on the head of Krishan Kumar. According to him, the delay in lodging the FIR is on account of the inaction of the police, which did not respond even to the ruqa sent by the doctors. According to him, the police is siding with the petitioners and the police has even recorded a wrong fact in the FIR regarding the complainant going to UP for treatment. He has further submitted that the complainant never went to UP for treatment.

When the petitioners have already been arrested and granted regular bail before addition of section 307 IPC, they would have become entitled to anticipatory bail on addition of section 307 IPC in normal circumstances. However, it is very serious case where Multan, petitioner gave a kassi blow on the head of Krishan Kumar and this is the injury, which is said to attract section 307 IPC. The nature of the weapon used and the part of the body of Krishan Kumar on which the blow was given would itself speak of seriousness of the assault made on his life. The aspect of delay of five days in lodging the FIR in this case would be examined by the trial court in view of the explanation therefor submitted by learned counsel for the complainant.

In these circumstances, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.