IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23527 of 2009 Date of decision : September 23, 2009 Rinku ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Nehal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rinku has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 193 dated 19.7.2009 under sections 308, 382, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station City Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner along with 5/6 other persons encircled Bolero vehicle in which complainant Bikramjit Singh was going. The petitioner and his companions attacked the complainant and his companion Gurjant Singh who was driving the Bolero vehicle and snatched the Bolero vehicle and also Rs 5000/- from the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that injury caused to the complainant has been found to be simple. However, this is not a case Criminal Misc. No. M-23527 of 2009 -2- of injury only. It is a case of robbery wherein Bolero vehicle and Rs 5000/- were snatched forcibly after causing injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vehicle was found parked at some distance from the place of occurrence. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Shiv Ram, states that Bolero vehicle has not yet been recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that one Ajay Kumar has lodged FIR Annexure P/3 against Ashok Kumar and Sukhwinder Singh. It is contended that Bikramjit Singh complainant of the present case is employee of Ashok Kumar, liquor contractor. However, impugned FIR Annexure P/1 reveals that complainant is employee of Charanjit Singh, liquor contractor and not of Ashok Kumar. Allegations against the petitioner are serious. The petitioner alongwith his companions attacked the complainant and his companion and also snatched Bolero vehicle and Rs 5000/-. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to comment anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 23, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'