IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-33344 of 2011 Date of decision : November 26, 2011 Gurdeep Singh @ Bhinda ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-33344 of 2011, filed by Gurdeep Singh @ Bhinda and Criminal Misc. No. M-35149 of 2011 filed by Gurtej Singh @ Teji, both seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 52 dated 28.7.2011, under sections 326, 324, 323, 341, 336, 148, 149 IPC and later on section 307 IPC added by police and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. FIR in question was lodged by the side of the petitioners but they have been arrayed as accused in cross-version by the other side. Petitioner Gurdeep Singh @ Bhinda is attributed grievous hurt with sharp Criminal Misc. No. M-33344 of 2011 -2- weapon falling within the purview of section 326 IPC whereas Gurtej Singh @ Teji petitioner is attributed simple hurt with reverse side of gandasi falling within the purview of section 323 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner Gurdeep Singh @ Bhinda himself suffered 20 injuries in the same occurrence as mentioned in MLR, Annexure P/3 and out of it 19 injuries were with sharp weapon and three injuries have been found to be grievous in nature. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baljit Singh, admitted this factual position. It may also be mentioned that offence under section 307 IPC has also been added in the case because some shots were also allegedly fired from the side of the petitioners but learned State counsel, on instruction, submitted that no fire arm injury was suffered by the other side. Keeping in view the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, both these petitions for anticipatory bail are allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions specified in section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when required by the police. Presently, the petitioners are directed to join investigation on 5.12.2011 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so as and when required by the police. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 26, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'