IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-20715 of 2009 Date of decision : November 23, 2009 Harpreet Singh ....Petitioner versus U.T. Chandigarh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate for UT Chandigarh L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Harpreet Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 273 dated 29.6.2009 under sections 324, 506 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner who is also known as Robo spat on Bhanu Partap and when Bhanu Partap asked why the petitioner did so, the petitioner inflicted slaps and fist blows to Bhanu Partap. His companions Shobit complainant and Mohit rescued him. However, the petitioner made telephone calls from his mobile and thereupon two boys came on a scooter. One of them inflicted 5/6 blows with knife to Bhanu Partap. Complainant Shobit tried to rescue Bhanu Partap but two more boys (companions of the petitioner) came on a scooter. Criminal Misc. No. M-20715 of 2009 -2- They were also having knives. They also inflicted knife blows to the complainant. The petitioner also inflicted knife blow on left hand of the complainant. Bhanu Partap, Mohit and complainant all suffered injuries at the hands of petitioner and his companions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is attributed only simple injury. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Balbir Singh, contended that offence under section 326 IPC has since been added. It is also contended that the petitioner is the main culprit of the case. He spat on Bhanu Partap without any reason and then called his companions and all of them then caused injuries to the complainant party including grievous hurt. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 23, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'