Crl. Misc. No. M-17390 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17390 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 30, 2010 Parshant Goyal ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the complainant. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.45 dated 17.4.2010 registered at P.S. Gidderbaha, under Sections 307,325,323,34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') in which offences under Section 120-B,148,149 IPC have also been added. The allegation against the petitioner is that at his instance injuries had been caused by the co-accused on the person of Narinder Kumar. During investigation, the statements of Guranditta Singh and Narinder Kumar were recorded. As per the said witnesses the petitioner had paid money to his co-accused to inflict injuries on the person of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. After 18 Crl. Misc. No. M-17390 of 2010 (O&M) 2 days of the incident petitioner was named in the FIR. The occurrence which had allegedly formed motive had taken place in the year 2007 which later resulted in a compromise. Learned State Counsel, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the petitioner had although joined investigation but was not co-operating with the Investigating Agency. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Petitioner had allegedly paid money to his co-accused to inflict injuries on the person of the complainant. The delay and motive is not a material consideration at this stage. Accordingly, keeping in view the seriousness offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) June 30, 2010 JUDGE Anand