Crl. Misc. No. M-35439 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-35439 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 14, 2011 Narinder Kumar Verma and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 68721 of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. 68720 of 2011 : Application is allowed and Annexure P-7 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Narinder Kumar Verma and his son Anil Verma have filed this Crl. Misc. No. M-35439 of 2011 2 petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.408 dated 12.11.2011, under Sections 452, 148, 149, 323, 325, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, both the petitioners along with Usha Verma wife of petitioner no.1 went to the house of the complainant, who is father-in-law of daughter of petitioner no.1, on 21.10.2011 at about 11:30 P.M. Narinder Verma - petitioner no.1 inflicted base-ball bat on right hand of the complainant resulting in fracture. The accused also damaged household articles of the complainant. The complainant party was also criminally intimidated. Counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact, the complainant party had beaten the complainant's daughter-in-law Neetu @ Deep Kamal i.e. daughter of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.2 and on receiving telephone call from her, both the petitioners along with Usha Verma, went to the house of the complainant. Neetu pushed the complainant, who fell down and suffered the injury. It was pointed out that Neetu moved complaint Annexure P-3 on 24.10.2011 to Commissioner of Police regarding the occurrence and thereupon FIR Annexure P-7 has been registered on 11.12.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 IPC against the complainant party and it was after complaint Crl. Misc. No. M-35439 of 2011 3 Annexure P-3 that the complainant moved complaint Annexure P-4 to the Commissioner of Police on 24.10.2011 itself, but receipt number of complainant's complaint is 9258, whereas receipt number of complaint Annexure P-3 moved by Neetu is 1635 depicting that complainant's complaint was moved later in time to the complaint moved by Neetu. Counsel for the petitioners also contended that the complainant party concealed complaint Annexure P-4 while lodging the FIR and also concealed petition moved by the complainant in this Court for registration of FIR. On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant reiterated the prosecution version. Counsel for the complainant also contended that in fact, complainant had moved complaint Annexure P-4 to the Commissioner of Police on 22.10.2011 itself and this fact even appeared in the newspaper on 23.10.2011, but it is not explained as to why receipt number of complaint Annexure P-4 is of 24.10.2011. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Only simple injury is attributed to petitioner no.2. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ashok Kumar, stated that pursuant to interim order of this Court, petitioner no.2 has since joined investigation. Keeping in view the role attributed to petitioner no.2, I find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2. It may be mentioned that even the petitioners admitted that the occurrence did take Crl. Misc. No. M-35439 of 2011 4 place, but there is conflict regarding the version of the occurrence given by both the parties. In the FIR registered by Neetu daughter of petitioner no.1, the complainant party may face the consequences, but the fact remains that the complainant did suffer injuries including grievous hurt. The grievous hurt is attributed to petitioner no.1. Petitioners did go to the house of the complainant at about midnight, although in support of Neetu, who is daughter of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.2. Keeping in view the role attributed to petitioner no.1, in my opinion, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. For the reasons aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail qua petitioner no.1 Narinder Kumar Verma is dismissed. However, the instant petition qua petitioner no.2 Anil Verma is allowed. Interim order dated 23.11.2011 qua petitioner no.2 is made absolute. December 14, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE