Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Accused Charged for Offence of Grievous Hurt

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

In this case, the accused (herein, petitioners) were charged for the offence of grievous hurt. The arrest occurred after hurting the respondents, following a heated argument. The petitioners later filed for interim bail. The respondents opposed the bail as they feared further hurt.

Brief Facts of the Case 

While one of the complainants was slashing a branch of a tree, the branch fell into one of the petitioner’s house. Being annoyed by this, the petitioner went to the complainant. Thus, an argument broke out. The petitioner started to abuse the complainant in a physical and verbal manner. The complainant cried for help after which the other complainants came to help. Thereafter, other petitioners joined petitioner no.1 in the attack. The petitioners also attacked the complainants in a brutal manner. 

It is imperative to note that the petitioners attacked the complainant’s house with stones. When they tried to escape, the petitioners restrained and threatened the complainants. The complainants suffered several injuries. Some of these injuries were also life-threatening. The complainants, as a result, filed an FIR and consequently, the police arrested the petitioners. 

The police made a status report based on the statements given by the complainants under Section 154 of CrPC. The police charged them under several offences as per the Indian Penal Code. The offences included an attempt to murder (Section 307), and an intentional insult to breach peace (Section 504). The petitioners were also accused of criminal intimidation (Section 506). Charges relating to weapons and unlawful assembly were also filed. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed for interim bail under Section 438 of CrPC. The complainants have, however, opposed the bail under Section 439(2) of CrPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners have claimed to be innocent. They stated that the charges filed against them were wrong and false. Moreover, the counsel argued that there was no need for interrogation. This is for the very reason that nothing can be recovered from them now.  Further, they are not in a position to affect the investigation in any manner. They also claimed that they have been cooperating with the investigation. 

Furthermore, the petitioners argued that they have suffered injuries as well. This fact was discernible from the police reports. Thus, the counsel argued that these injuries will have to be explained. This would then help in making their case for bail. Thus, the petitioners prayed before the High Court to allow their petition. 

Respondent’s Argument

The respondents stated that the investigation was in the initial stages. The complainants claimed that custody of the petitioners was necessary for the investigation. Moreover, the complainants claimed that they have also received threats of grievous hurt from the petitioner. The complainants, therefore, requested for rejection of the application in light of their protection. 

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that both the parties sustained injuries. It further observed that custody of the petitioners is not fruitful at this stage. Subsequently, the Court stated that they were cooperating with the investigation. Also, the petitioners are not in a position to hinder the investigation. Thus, the Court found the case to be fit for bail.

Court’s Judgment

Based on the facts of the case and arguments placed before, the Court allowed the petition. Thus, the Court granted bail to the petitioners.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -