IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.10748-M of 2010 Date of Decision:26.5.2010 Resham Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Gaurave Bhayyia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Anil Garg, Advocate for the complainant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.78 dated 1.3.2010 registered under Sections 307,452,323,325,148,149 IPC at Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under Section 307 IPC. The said injury was inflicted on one Janak Raj while pressing his throat. The said version was given in the statement of said Janak Raj after the registration of the FIR. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find it a case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is not in dispute that the injury attributed to the petitioner on one Ram Chand was simple in nature. It is also admitted that Section 307 IPC has been added subsequently after registration of the FIR. It is also admitted that same is on account of injury to one Janak Raj which does not Crl. M. No.10748-M of 2010 -2- find mention in the FIR and the same is on the basis of a report obtained subsequently from a private hospital which was 70 k.m. away whereas civil/government hospital is stated to be at 2 k.m. In fact, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on instructions from HC Gurdip Singh states that co-accused Tejinder Pal has been found innocent by the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is further stated that said Tejinder Pal has been found innocent on the ground that he was not present at the time of occurrence in spite of specific and active role attributed to the co-accused Tejinder Pal in the FIR, creating further doubt about the prosecution version and the extent of involvement of present petitioner. Moreover, learned State counsel on instruction from HC Gurdip Singh states that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. Accordingly, order dated 9.4.2010 is made absolute and the petition is allowed as such. 26.5.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE