ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN,J. - (1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No.337 dated 14.06.2020 under Sections 323, 34, 376, 498-A, 511 IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of Jyoti wife of Vishal Gahlyan, son of the petitioner, on 12.06.2020, when at about 11.20 PM, she was sleeping in her room, her brother-in-law Vikas and father-in-law Rajender Gahlyan entered into her room and tried to commit wrong act with her. When she made noise, the accused persons gave beatings to her and even her husband did not support her. It is further submitted that in fact, FIR No.338 dated 14.06.2020 was registered under Sections 323, 34, 452, 506 IPC, at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat on the complaint given by the petitioner and the present FIR is just a counter-blast to the same, however, later on, the said FIR No.338 was cancelled by the police during the investigation.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact, it is a matrimonial dispute between complainant Jyoti and her husband namely Vishal Gahlyan, whereas the petitioner being father-in-law, who is aged about 57 years, is involved in another FIR No.481 dated 08.08.2020 under Sections 323, 34, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, again with allegations of trying to commit rape, in which he has been granted the concession of regular bail. The operative part of the order dated 03.12.2020 passed in CRM-M-39872-2020, granting bail to the petitioner in FIR No.481, reads as under: - "...Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is father-in-law of complainant Jyoti daughter of Balwan. It is further submitted that marriage of Jyoti was solemnized with son of the petitioner namely Vishal on 18.03.2009 and two children were born out of this wedlock. It is also submitted that on 14.06.2020, two cross-FIRs were registered on account of the allegations and counter-allegations between the petitioner's side as well as complainant ' side. FIR No.337 under Sections 323, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was registered by the present complainant against her husband and in-laws and FIR No.338 under Sections 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered by petitioner Rajinder against complainant Jyoti and her family members. Since there were allegations and counter-allegations, the matter was compromised between the parties, however, the complainant kept the same in her mind and her behaviour aggravated thereafter. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per allegations in the FIR, on 06.08.2020, when husband of the complainant Vishal had gone to the farms, his brother i.e. brother-in-law of the complainant Vikas forcibly entered her room and committed wrong act with her without her consent. This fact was brought to the notice of her husband on 07.08.2020, when he returned back and instead of scolding Vikas, all the persons gave beatings to the complainant. In the meantime, complainant called her parents to arrived at the spot and thereafter, there was a fight between them and complainant Jyoti, her mother Kamlesh and father Balwan were allegedly caused injuries by the petitioner and his two sons. It is further submitted that during the investigation, wife of the petitioner namely Roshni Devi was found innocent. It is next argued that even both son of the petitioner Vishal and Vikas have suffered injuries in the said scuffle and relied upon their MLRs. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has next argued that during the investigation, the police deleted the allegation of rape and Section 376IPC stands omitted. Learned senior counsel has referred to the statement of injured Kamlesh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Vishal has caused injuries on her head, whereas other injured Balwan and complainant Jyoti suffered simple injuries. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 57years and is in custody since 18.09.2020; investigation is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. Learned State counsel has not disputed the factual position, as submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that three persons were injured from the complainant side including her mother and father. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner and his sons have caused grievous injuries using lathi and iron rod etc. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is granted bail, he can misuse the concession of bail and may try to induce the witnesses. " ;