Criminal Misc. No.M-31152 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31152 of 2011 Date of Decision : 7th November, 2011 Basant Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Gurdev Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondent-complainant. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Basant Singh and his brother Gurmeet Singh have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in complaint case instituted by respondent- complainant Gurdev Singh under Sections 302, 201, 148, 149 IPC pertaining to Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to complainant's version, petitioners along with their co-accused took away complainant's nephew Ganga Singh since deceased and after causing injuries to him, threw him in the river resulting in his death. Complainant lodged FIR but the police after investigation challaned Gurmail Singh and Gurjit Singh (non-petitioners) whereas the petitioners and their third brother Jaswant Singh were not challaned by the police, necessitating the filing of the instant complaint Annexure P-1. Criminal Misc. No.M-31152 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that enquiry was held by three officers of the Rank Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and the petitioners along with their brother Jaswant Singh were found innocent. It was also contended that only one ante-mortem injury was found on the deceased, which was likely to be caused in the process of drowning and therefore, the complainant's version that accused had caused injuries to the deceased, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the petitioners were named in the FIR and specific role was attributed to them but still they were not challaned by the police, necessitating filing of impugned complaint Annexure P-1. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In the earliest version of the complainant as contained in the FIR, the petitioners were specifically named among the culprits and specific role was attributed to them. However, the petitioners were not challaned by the police. At best, it may be said that there is version of the complainant on the one hand and version of the petitioners on the other hand. Keeping in view the serious allegations made against the petitioners and the nature of offences, I do not find it to be a fit case for releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Dismissed without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 7th November, 2011 'raj'