Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sukh Ram Jakhar & Ors v. State of Haryana. - CRM-27540-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3051 (11 May 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

1. Criminal Misc. No.27540/M of 2006. Sukh Ram Jakhar and others vs. State of Haryana.

2. Criminal Misc. No.27542/M of 2006. Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Haryana.

3. Criminal Misc. No.28147/M of 2006. L.N.Prashar vs. State of Haryana.

4. Criminal Misc. No.28745/M of 2006. Kailash vs. State of Haryana.

5. Criminal Misc. No.28747/M of 2006. Om Parkash Sharma vs. State of Haryana.

Date of decision : 23.5.2006

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.G.K.Chartrath,Senior Advocate with Mr.Saurav Khurana,Advocate,for the petitioners.

Mr.Jitendra Chauhan,Sr. Deputy Advocate General,Haryana.

Mr.S.S.Narula,Advocate,for the complainant.

Kiran Anand Lall,J.

This order will dispose of five petitions, bearing Criminal Misc.

Nos.27540/M, 27542/M, 28147/M, 28745/M, and 28747/M of 2006, respectively, filed by different petitioners, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail. All these petitions arise out of FIR No.155 dated 31.3.2006, registered at Police Station, Central, Faridabad. The first petition has been filed by Sukh Ram Jakhar, Rajinder Sharma, Bijender @ Bijji and Kokal @ Shiv Kumar petitioners, while the remaining four are of Sant Ram Sharma, L.N.Prashar, Kailash, and Om Parkash Sharma petitioners, Criminal Misc. No.27540/M of 2006. (2)


respectively. All the petitioners are practising Advocates, in District Courts, at Faridabad. Ajaybir Bhadana, on whose complaint the case was registered, is also a practising Advocate, at Faridabad.

There are two bar associations, at Faridabad. Petitioners claim themselves to be members of District Bar Association, Faridabad (to be referred as "Bar-I"), of which L.N.Prashar petitioner is the President. The complainant and his associates are members of the other Bar Association, known as Faridabad District Bar Association, Faridabad (to be referred as "Bar-II"), which is headed by J.P.Adhana, Advocate, as the President.

The occurrence took place on 31.3.2006. As per the prosecution case, the term of contract of canteen and cycle-stand, which had been given by J.P.Adhana, President, Bar-II, was to come to an end on that day. And since about 10-15 days prior thereto, Om Parkash Sharma and L.N.Prashar petitioners, who have a criminal record, in association with 15-20 other advocates of their group, had started calling anti-social goonda elements to the court-compound in order to create fear in the minds of other advocates and they all had been proclaiming that they would not let the contractor complete his term and would instead give the contract (of canteen, cycle- stand and Photostat machines) to their own men, who would pay contract- money to them. They had also been proclaiming that they would thrash the contractor who was running the canteen. J.P.Adhana, Advocate, along with his companions, had met the Sessions Judge, Deputy Commissioner, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, in this regard, in the form of a delegation, and had also given a representation to them, so that the authorities may take necessary action so as to avoid the happening of any untoward incident.

Criminal Misc. No.27540/M of 2006. (3)


On 31.3.2006, Ajaybir Bhadana, Advocate (complainant), went to meet J.P.Adhana, President of Bar-II, at about 3.30/3.45 p.m., at his seat, where 7/8 more lawyers, Nakul Chaprana, Rakesh Bhadana, Mahender Bainsala, Satish Bhadana, Satender Bhadana, Jai Chand and Ramesh Nagar, were having discussion with J.P.Adhana, Advocate, in the matter. In the meantime, Om Parkash Sharma and L.N.Prashar petitioners, accompanied by 20/25 lawyers and the equal number of outside goonda-elements, went to the canteen and started ransacking it. On hearing the noise, J.P.Adhana and his companion-Advocates, including the complainant, went there. On seeing them, Om Parkash Sharma and L.N.Prashar gave a lalkara, in loud voice, "today they are 5/6 only. Kill them. Then we will see who dares to challenge us". On this, L.N.Prashar, Om Parkash Sharma and his son Gaurav Sharma (also an advocate), whipped out their revolvers and announced that, that was the right time to shoot J.P.Adhana and his companions. Kailash Advocate pointed his double-barrel gun towards them, while their other companion-Advocates, Bijender @ Bijji,Narender Prashar, Sumesh Sharma, Sant Ram Sharma, Sukh Ram Jakhar, Kokal (of Village Tigaon), Rajender Sharma (of Village Sihi), Surinder Sharma (of Mohalla Barh), Rahul Sethi, L.N.Prashar, and Om Parkash Sharma, etc., all advocates, who were armed with dandas and stones, 12/15 outside goonda elements, who were armed with revolvers, guns, dandas and stones etc.; and Birpal son of Girraj resident of Village Baroli who had been previously working as a contractor in the court-premises and was armed with a revolver, attacked the members of the complainant party. Om Parkash Sharma, L.N.Prashar, and Gaurav Sharma started firing,with the intention to kill the complainant -party. On seeing them doing so, Kailash Advocate also started firing from Criminal Misc. No.27540/M of 2006. (4)


his double-barrel gun. The complainant-party, therefore, started running towards the STD booth, in order to save themselves from bullets and stones.

In the meanwhile, one of those bullets hit Rakesh Bhadana, Advocate, in his thigh. He fell down on the ground and bullet-injury received by him started bleeding profusely. On hearing the noise that Rakesh Bhadana had been hit by a bullet, the petitioners and the other assailants ran away from the spot in cars, alongwith their arms. Due to the serious condition of Rakesh Bhadana, the complainant and Nakul Chaprana, Advocate, took him to the Escorts Hospital and got him admitted there. The other members of the complainant party also sustained injuries, with the stones pelted by the assailants.

The case against the petitioners (and others) was registered on the basis of a report, lodged by Ajaybir Bhadana, Advocate, on the same day.

Apprehending their arrest in the case, registered under Sections 148, 307/149, and 506 IPC, and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioners applied for grant of anticipatory bail, to the court of Sessions, at Faridabad. The same having been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, they have come up to this court, for the same relief.

In so far as Sukh Ram Jakhar, Rajinder Sharma, Bijender @ Bijji, Kokal @ Shiv Kumar and Sant Ram Sharma petitioners are concerned, they are alleged to have pelted stones only. However, the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General could not point out as to which member of the complainant party was injured with those stones. That being so, relief of anticipatory bail can be made available to them, under the circumstances, and it is so ordered. They would, however, join the investigation as and Criminal Misc. No.27540/M of 2006. (5)


when they are called upon to do so and they shall fully cooperate in the investigation. In case they are required to be arrested, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Further, they shall not leave India without the prior permission of the trial court and shall surrender their passports, if any, before the investigating officer. Criminal Misc.

Nos.27540/M and 27542/M of 2006 are, accordingly, allowed.

The other three petitioners, L.N.Prashar, Kailash, and Om Parkash Sharma who were members of the unlawful assembly had, allegedly, played a prominent role in the occurrence. Out of them, Kailash had opened fire with his double barrel gun and L.N.Prashar and Om Parkash Sharma had fired from their respective revolvers, on the members of the complainant party. The latter tried to save themselves from the bullets, by running towards the STD booth but one bullet hit Rakesh Bhadana, in his thigh, and he fell down on the ground, with his injury bleeding profusely.

Besides the allegations being serious, police would require their person for effecting recovery of weapons of offence viz. revolvers and the double- barrel gun, also. The contention of learned Senior Deputy Advocate General that many criminal cases were earlier also registered against Om Parkash Sharma and L.N.Prashar, Advocates, could not be controverted by the learned counsel representing them. Persons of their type, who had even earlier been facing criminal cases, do not, in my view, deserve the concession of anticipatory bail which is an extra-ordinary remedy provided under law and it has to be resorted to only in exceptional cases when special grounds for grant thereof are made out. The case in hand cannot, by any method of interpretation, be termed as one such type of case. In view of this fact and also because recovery of fire arms would have to be effected from Criminal Misc. No.27540/M of 2006. (6)


them, no case for grant of anticipatory bail to them is made out. Their petitions bearing Criminal Misc. Nos.28147/M, 28745/M, and 28747/M of 2006, shall, therefore, stand dismissed.

23.5.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)

vs. Judge.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.