Rahul vs State Of Haryana

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

Prayer in both these petitions is for grant of regular bail to petitioners Rahul and Parveen, in FIR No.874 dated 14.10.2020 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 379-B IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of Anand son of Baljit, he is partner in a liquor vend and on 12.10.2020, at night, one Pritam along with two other persons came on his liquor vend and he can identify two other persons. It is further stated that the accused persons demanded bottle of liquor on less price and on that pretext, they started abusing him. When he protested, the accused persons entered the liquor vend and gave him beatings and pushed him outside the liquor vend and had also taken away the cash amount, which was lying in the chest. The passerby rescued him. In the incident, Anand as well as Manjeet suffered injuries. Thereafter, Pritam along with other accused persons again came on the liquor vend, carrying sticks and rods and caused injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in custody since 28.12.2020 and the present FIR is a counter-blast to another FIR No.879 dated 16.10.2020 under Sections 148, 149, 285, 323, 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat, which was got registered at the instance of aforesaid Pritam against the complainant party. It is also submitted that from perusal of the FIR, no offence against the petitioners is made out.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificates dated 06.03.2021 of both the petitioners in the Court today and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, as the complainant and the injured, in their supplementary statements, have disclosed the name of the petitioners. It is submitted that anticipatory bail filed by another co-accused Rinku has already been dismissed.

Learned State counsel has further submitted that both the petitioners have assaulted the complainant as well as eye-witness Manjeet on account of providing liquor at lower price and when the complainant objected, they not only gave him beatings, but also taken the money lying in the chest of the liquor vend. It is also submitted that FIR No.879 was registered after two days of the incident and therefore, it is not a cross-version.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegations in the FIR, I find no ground to grant regular bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed.