Criminal Misc.-M No. 22309 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 22309 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.8.2011 Baljinder Singh and another .. Petitioners v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are accused in cross-version got recorded by the accused named in the FIR registered on the statement of Bhag Singh, father of the petitioners. In the fight which took place between close family members, Ramesh Kumar son of Bhag Singh died. Kuljinder Singh, his another son, suffered injuries for which Section 307 IPC was invoked. Other persons also suffered injuries. The allegation against the petitioners and other accused in the cross-version is that on account of injuries inflicted by them, Mohinder Singh suffered injuries which were opined to be dangerous to life. These are in the kind of fracture in the skull. As per the allegations in the cross-version, there is no specific attribution to any Criminal Misc.-M No. 22309 of 2011 [2] person named therein. It is stated that Bhag Singh and his sons-Ramesh Kumar, Kuljinder Singh and Paramjit Singh armed with Gandasis and Vijay and Baljinder Singh @ Ghugi armed with Daangs attacked the complainant, namely, injured-Mohinder Singh. Ramesh Kumar, out of the aforesaid persons, who was allegedly carrying a Gandasi, had died on account of fire arm injury attributed to Gurpreet Singh on the side of the complainant in the cross-version. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant party in the cross-version were the aggressive party. Ramesh Kumar on their side had died due to gun shot injury. Had they not attacked the other side in self-defence, more persons on their side would have been killed. On the other side, learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant submitted that the injuries attributed to the petitioners and other accused named in the cross-version are serious. Those were opined to be dangerous to life for which offence under Section 308 IPC was invoked. They do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are two injuries on the head of Mohinder Singh -complainant in the cross version. Three persons, namely, Ramesh Kumar, Kuljinder Singh and Paramjit Singh were allegedly carrying Gandasis, which were used from reverse side. Ramesh Kumar, out of those persons, has already expired. He has instructions from the petitioners to make a statement that Paramjit Singh will surrender before the court below within 3 days. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, considering the fact that on the side of the petitioners, one person, namely, Ramesh Kumar died on account of gun shot injury attributed to Gurpreet Singh on the other side and Kuljinder Singh had suffered an injury with a sharp-edged weapon, whereas on the side of the complainant in the cross- version, Mohinder Singh suffered injuries, which were opined to be dangerous to life; three persons in the cross-version were allegedly carrying Gandasis, one out of them had died in the fight whereas the other one suffered sharp-edged injuries and learned counsel for the petitioners Criminal Misc.-M No. 22309 of 2011 [3] stated that brother of the petitioners, namely, Paramjit Singh, who was also allegedly carrying a Gandasi will surrender before the court below within three days, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Let the petitioners join investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.8.2011 at 10.00 AM. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.8.2011 mk