The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to a man identified as Saurav alias Saurav Dhaiya, who had been booked for allegedly assaulting a lawyer in a neighbourhood dispute in Sonipat. The case arose from an FIR registered at the Civil Lines police station based on allegations that on a January afternoon, the complainant, a lawyer named Anil Kumar Antil, was attacked after he had removed an obstruction from near his residence. According to the FIR, shortly after this incident, the accused and others waylaid the complainant while armed with bamboo sticks. It was alleged that the assailants smashed the complainant’s car windshield and struck him multiple times on his head, causing bleeding and leading to a loss of consciousness. The FIR invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and additional sections were added subsequently. The allegations included intent to murder and assault with blunt weapons, which prompted the District Bar Association to observe a one-day strike demanding strict action against the accused.
Saurav approached the High Court directly seeking interim pre-arrest bail. He contended that the incident was a case of version and cross-version between the parties. Through his counsel, he argued that the facts had been misrepresented and that there were conflicting accounts regarding who initiated the altercation. The defence maintained that the complainant had portrayed himself as a victim while suppressing material aspects of the occurrence. It was submitted that two individuals, Rita and Bishram, were in fact the injured persons who suffered fractures after allegedly being hit by the complainant’s vehicle, suggesting that the complainant himself was the aggressor. Reference was made to a cross-FIR lodged against the complainant alleging that he was responsible for the incident. The petitioner also stated that since the complainant was an advocate and the Bar was on strike due to the incident, it was not feasible for him to approach the Sessions Court, and therefore he sought relief directly from the High Court.
The matter was heard by Justice Surya Partap Singh, who noted that the dispute appeared to involve competing versions of events, and at the preliminary stage it was not possible to determine conclusively which party was the aggressor. The court examined the medico-legal report relating to the complainant and observed that he had sustained three injuries. However, none of the injuries were declared grievous in nature. The medical opinion indicated that the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. The court further noted that there was no material placed on record to indicate that the petitioner had any prior criminal antecedents.
Taking into account the nature of the injuries and the existence of a cross-version of the incident, the court observed that the allegations at the interim stage did not conclusively establish circumstances that would justify denial of anticipatory bail. The bench emphasised that the determination of culpability and the precise sequence of events were matters to be established during trial and could not be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of considering anticipatory bail. The court also considered the petitioner’s submission that he was willing to join and cooperate with the investigation. It was observed that if recovery of any weapon was required, it could be facilitated by directing the petitioner to join the investigation without the necessity of custodial interrogation. The court found no material indicating that custodial interrogation was indispensable at that stage.
The High Court also took note of the extraordinary circumstances cited by the petitioner in directly approaching it for anticipatory bail, particularly the strike by the Bar Association following the incident. In view of these circumstances, the court held that an extraordinary situation existed, justifying the petitioner’s approach to the High Court without first seeking relief from the Sessions Court.
Accordingly, the court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to his cooperation with the investigation. The protection from arrest was made conditional, and the matter was listed for further hearing at a later date. The court’s order allowed the petitioner to remain protected from arrest while the investigation continued, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case. The proceedings were titled Saurav @ Saurav Dhaiya v. State of Haryana, and the interim relief was granted pending further consideration of the matter.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.