Crl.M.No.M-26147 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-26147 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 13, 2010 Joginder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.46689 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-26147 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.265, dated 24.7.2010, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dismissing the application of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the present petitioner. Petitioner is the main accused. He was armed with Barchi. He caused incised wounds on elbow of the complainant, which proved grievous. All other accused have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail. No accused has been arrested in this case. Petitioner alongwith co-accused waylaid the complainant and caused injuries. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that from the accused party as well five injuries were received by Tej Pal and however, no action has been taken by the police against the Crl.M.No.M-26147 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant-party. Perusal of the detail of injuries given in the petition received by Tej Pal shows that the same are only abrasion and contusion and three injuries on the fingers. Moreover it is a matter of evidence as to who was the aggressor. Police after investigation did not lodge any cross-case against the complainant-party. Taking into consideration the fact that the main injury has been attributed to the petitioner-accused and that weapon of offence is also yet to be recovered, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Joginder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge