In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.25532 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:12.1.2009 Vicky alias Vikramjit .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sohan Lal who has inter alia alleged that his son, namely, Sikandar Lal had some dispute with the petitioner regarding the keys of the vehicle. The petitioner armed with the sword stopped the son of the complainant in the street and started abusing him. In the meantime, Baldev Singh came and tried to pacify both. However, the petitioner under the influence of liquor gave a sword blow on the mouth and cheek of Sikandar Lal with the intention to kill him. In the meantime, daughter of the complainant, namely, Jaswinder Kaur came shouting “Bachao-Bachao”. At the same time Gagan alias Gaggu son of Kewal reached the spot and he started abusing and pushed Jaswinder Kaur. When the complainant and Baldev Singh tried to rescue Sikandar Lal, the petitioner attacked Baldev Singh and caused simple injury on his back and also caused three-four blows with his sword on the Cr. Misc.-M No.25532 of 2008 [2] son of the complainant which hit his cheek and left leg. During the scuffle and on alarm being raised many people gathered there and assailants Vicky and Gagan alias Gaggu ran from the spot with their respective weapons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.5.2008 and the trial will take some time. It is also stated that the incident occurred on 16.5.2008 but the FIR was registered on the following day i.e. on 17.5.2008. Besides, the occurrence has been mentioned at 10.30 p.m. and, therefore, possibility of a wrong person being identified cannot be ruled out. It is also submitted that Sikandar Lal injured was under the influence of liquor which is mentioned in the medico legal report. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant in the case and he caused grievous injuries to Sikandar Lal on his face which are in all five in number. Injuries No.1, 3 and 5 have been opined to be grievous in nature. It is also stated that the case before the trial Court is now fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 2.3.2009, therefore, the application for bail is liable to be dismissed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the order dated 17.9.2008 it has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that there is fracture of zygomatic bone of the face, of the nosal bone and left tibia bone. These three injuries are attributed to the petitioner. The question regarding the effect of delay in lodging the FIR and the question of identity of the petitioner would more appropriately be gone into after evidence in the case has been led. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the stage at which the trial of the case is, it would be inexpedient to extend the concession of Cr. Misc.-M No.25532 of 2008 [3] bail at this stage. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 12, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*