Libertatem Magazine

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

Contents of this Page

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. 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.

About the Author