Crl. Misc. No. M-34709 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-34709 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 12, 2011 Karan Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. S. Bakshi, Addl. A. G., Haryana with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Karan Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.284 dated 27.10.2011, under Sections 324, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner raised Crl. Misc. No. M-34709 of 2011 2 lalkara and caught hold of the injured complainant Bir Singh, to whom petitioner's son Ranjit Singh inflicted gandasi blow resulting in grievous hurt constituting offence under Section 326 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner contended that according to MLR, it was lacerated wound, and therefore, it was caused by blunt weapon and not by sharp weapon and the offence would fall under Section 325 IPC. It was also contended that the only role attributed to the petitioner is of raising lalkara and catching hold of the complainant. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ashwani Kumar, contended that according to medical evidence, the injury was caused with sharp weapon, and therefore, the offence falls under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 325 IPC. It is also stated that according to the case summary received from PGI, Chandigarh, it was grievous hurt with sharp weapon and the injured-complainant remained admitted in PGI since 21.10.2011 till 24.10.2011. It is also stated by learned State counsel that petitioner's son Ranjit Singh was arrested on 30.10.2011 and is still in custody. Counsel for the complainant referred to civil litigation between the parties and orders passed by Civil Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner, and the Crl. Misc. No. M-34709 of 2011 3 fact that the main accused, who is petitioner's son, is already in custody for more than six weeks, I find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police. Presently, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 22.12.2011 at 10:00 A.M. and continue to do so as and when required by the police. December 12, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE