Crl.M. No. M- 1591 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M- 1591 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.2.2011 ... Dhan Singh ................Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Sh. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. ... K.C. Puri, J. Dhan Singh s/o Ramji Lal has applied for grant of bail in FIR No. 217 dated 11.7.2010 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 506, 307 IPC registered at Police Station Hodal, Tehsil and District Palwal. As per the allegation of the prosecution, petitioner – Dhan Singh gave injury on the head of Kishore Singh – complainant. One injury was caused by the reverse side of the axe by Dhan Singh and the other on the left foot finger of Kishore Singh. Later on, as per statement of Kapil s/o complainant, petitioner has given injury on the head of Kapil from the reverse side of axe, which injury, according to Crl.M. No. M- 1591 of 2011 -2- the prosecution was stated to be dangerous to life. The challan has been presented. According to the prosecution the recovery of weapon from the petitioner is that of Danda. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that originally the FIR was recorded at the instance of the petitioner, vide FIR No. 207 dated 29.6.2010 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 IPC at Police Station Hodal and later on Section 307 IPC was added, but that was deleted thereafter. The initial version has been given by the petitioner. In the FIR it is not mentioned that injury dangerous to life has been attributed to the petitioner. Duli Chand, one of the brother of the petitioner, is stated to be ASI, who is against the petitioner. The petitioner also suffered injury on the head alongwith other injury. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 24.12.2010. According to the prosecution, the age of the petitioner is 60 years, whereas counsel for petitioner has submitted that he is aged 70 years. So, without commenting on the merits of the case, taking into account the fact that it is a case of cross version, bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ( K.C. Puri ) 7.2.2011 Judge chugh