AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.S.Shekhawat J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483(3) of B.N.S.S, 2023 with a prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail, which was granted to respondents No.2 and 3 in a case arising out of FIR No.361, dated 05.06.2026, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S {corresponding Sections 323,341,308,506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-58, Faridabad (Annexure P-1), vide the impugned order dated 01.08.2026, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad (Annexure P-2).
The F.I.R in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by petitioner/complainant and the same has been reproduced below:-
“I, Jitendra Kumar, S/o Bharatpal Singh, resident of Flat No. 662, Om Shivam Om Society, Sector 65, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, work at Kotak Mahindra Bank NIT-5, Faridabad. On 03.06.2026, I had gone to Sikri in my car (Breeza) to go to the gym. While I was at the gym, my friend Pratap asked to borrow my car for some work of his. When Pratap returned, he told me that he had taken my Aura car to the petrol pump and that a quarrel had broken out there. After finishing at the gym, I left at around 09:15 AM.When I reached near D.P.S. School, close to the Kaili flyover, one car came and blocked the front of my car and another car pulled up behind it. People got out and started beating me with sticks (dandas) and attacking me on the road. One of them hit me on the head with a stick, two others hit and struck me with their hands and a stick, and the third and fourth hit me on the leg with a stick and a rod until I became semi-conscious. While I was semi-conscious, they took the keys of my car and left. As they were leaving, they threatened that if I told anyone they one is would kill me. I later came to know their names Harkesh, resident of Pyala, along with his companion, and the third is Surajeet Dalal, S/o Raj Singh, resident of Pyala. The name of the fourth person is not known. My request to you is that strict action be taken against those who assaulted me. SD/- Complainant: Jitendra Kumar, Mobile No. 9953582849.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that specific allegations were levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 regarding causing an injury, which amounted to attempt to commit culpable homicide. Apart from that, it is also apparent from the M.L.R (Annexure P-3), that the petitioner had suffered the following three injuries:-
Lacerated wound of size 4 cm x 0.5 cm present over the left side of forehead. Advised NCCT Head, Surgeon opinion. KUO, within six hours, blunt.
Pain and Deformity present over the right forearm. Advised X-Ray. Right Forearm AP/Lat, Ortho opinion. KUO, within six hours, blunt.
Abrasion of size 1 cm x 0.2 cm present over the right side of tibial tuberosity. Advised X-Ray. Right knee AP/LAT and X-Ray right leg AP/LAT.Ortho opinion. KUO, within six hours, blunt.
Learned counsel further submits that the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad had drawn a wrong inference that the petitioner was aggressor and he was under the influence of liquor. In fact, no medical test was ever conducted on the petitioner to ascertain the consumption of liquor. Apart from that, the impugned order is based on mis-appreciation of facts and the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully.
In the present case, respondents No.2 and 3 had applied for grant of concession of anticipatory bail before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. In fact, it is apparent from the M.L.R (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner that at the time of injuries, he was under the influence of liquor and smell of Alcohol was present in his mouth and breath, as per the doctors. Even, respondents No.2 and 3 had raised the argument before the Trial Court that it was a case of version and cross-version and question of aggressor was yet to decided by the Court. Apart from that, it was also apparent that the petitioner/complainant was coming from a wrong side in a drunken condition and under the influence of liquor, he and his other accomplices started quarreling with the respondents No.2 and 3. Consequently, a cross-version in the shape of Diary No.811-5P11 dated 04.06.2026 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sector-58, Faridabad. Thus, it is apparent that the complainant himself was the aggressor in the present case. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner has not alleged that the respondents No.2 and 3 had ever misused the concession of bail granted to them or there were chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Apart from that, there is no material to show that respondents No.2 and 3 had ever attempted to threaten any witness or had any criminal antecedents. Thus, the respondents No.2 and 3 have been rightly granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of M. Dharmarajam and others Vs.State of Telangana and Anr., 2020(1) RCR Criminal, 540 as follows:-
“The factors to be considered while granting bail have been held by this Court to be the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the course of justice etc. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario, and therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The Court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. For the purpose of bail, the Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same”.
8.In Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.
9.It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail”.
In view of the above discussion, finding no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and the same is ordered to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.