In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 35297 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 23, 2011 Gurlal Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. The petitioner-accused, Gurlal Singh son of Balwant Singh, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 78 dated 30.6.2010 registered under Sections 452, 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC in police station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran. This FIR was registered against the present petitioner and others on the statement of Shamsher Singh, who came out with the version that on 27.6.2010, he along with his friends was playing a cricket match with the present petitioner and others. After the accused party lost the match, they started quarreling with them and they exchanged hot words. However, the matter was compromised. On the next day, he was present in his house, when the petitioner armed with a datar, his father Balwant Singh @ Meena also armed with a datar, Baljinder Singh armed with a kirpan and one Aazad armed with a datar, along with three other persons, who are Crl. Misc. No. M- 35297 of 2011(O&M) -2- armed with brick bats, hockey stick and iron rod came there. The petitioner raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson and thereafter, a blow was given with the help of kirpan on his left arm by Baljinder Singh. The present petitioner gave a blow with his datar, which hit the first two fingers of his hand. Aazad gave a blow with his datar on his head. When his father came forward to save him, he was also given injuries by these accused. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been pressed on the ground that there is cross case against the accused party and there was a free fight in which the injuries were received by both the sides and that in the cross case, benefit of anticipatory bail has been granted. It may be so, but the fact remains that the injury, which has been attributed to the present petitioner, after X-ray examination, was declared as grievous. The Investigating agency will like to recover the weapon of offence from the possession of the accused for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is not a case where the extra ordinary remedy of anticipatory bail can be invoked. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 23, 2011 PARAMJIT