CRM-M No.22780 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.22780 of 2011 Date of Decision : 14.09.2011 Sohan Singh & another ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant. **** Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) Prayer in this application is for grant of regular bail qua two petitioners who are stated to be in custody since 09.05.2011. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the injury which has come within the ambit of Section 308 IPC has been caused by Nachhatar Singh @ Babloo with kappa on the right side of the head of the complainant namely Hardip Singh. Other injury, which has been attributed to Sohan Singh is on the left side of the head of Hardip Singh which is although with a khanda, has been declared to be simple in nature. As regards petitioner No.2 Satnam Singh mentioned as Kala Singh in the FIR he has attributed an iron angle blow to Lakhvir Singh on the left side of his head which has again been declared simple in nature. He further contends that both the injuries attributed to both CRM-M No.22780 of 2011 -2- the petitioners are simple in nature and concession of bail should be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the State and the complainant impressed upon the court that it was a planned attack on Hardip Singh and Lakhvir Singh by four of the accused. They came together to the house of the complainant and attack him with deadly weapons. It is sheer luck that Hardip Singh survived despite an injury on the head, which was declared dangerous to life. As far as the nature of injuries are concerned, which are attributed to the petitioners that they are simple in nature, the counsel could not dispute however, they submit that keeping in view the injury received by Hardip Singh and the intention of the petitioner Sohan Singh to further exaggerate the injury by another blow on the head which is by khanda, a dangerous weapon, does not put him on a different footing than Nachhatar Singh. Similar is the contention with regard to Kala Singh that he had also given injury on the head, which is vital part and therefore, they should not be granted the concession of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case. As regards the case of petitioner No.1 – Sohan Singh is concerned, he was armed with khanda and he after seeing Nachhatar Singh having given kappa blow on the head of Hardip Singh did not stop there but aggravated the injury by giving another blow on the head which fortunately landed on the left side of the head. Although the nature of injury is simple but keeping in view the role attributed and the weapon used , the role of petitioner No.1 cannot be commented favourably nor he can be given the benefit of simply CRM-M No.22780 of 2011 -3- because the injury is of simple nature. Accordingly, prayer for grant of regular bail qua petitioner No.1 stands dismissed. Case of Satnam Singh is somewhat different as the injury attributed to him is not on the person of Hardip Singh but on Lakhvir Singh. He is stated to be armed with an iron angle and has given an injury on the left side of head of Lakhvir Singh. No another injury has been found on the person of Lakhvir Singh and the nature of injury attributed to him is simple. Keeping in view the fact that he is in custody since 9.5.2011 and no recovery has to be effected from him. Prayer of Satnam Singh for grant of regular bail is accepted. He is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. The present petition stands disposed of. September 14, 2011 (Augustine George Masih) sonia Judge