Crl. Misc. No. M-30536 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30536 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 21, 2011 Mandeep Singh alias Kala .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 70187 of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. 70186 of 2011 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Accused Mandeep Singh @ Kala has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.80 dated 13.08.2011, under Sections 323, Crl. Misc. No. M-30536 of 2011 (O&M) 2 452, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner armed with iron pipe and his co-accused armed with different weapons trespassed into the house of the complainant and had caught hold of his son Gurinder Singh. The petitioner damaged Air Conditioner installed in the room of Gurinder Singh. Petitioner's co-accused also caused injuries to him and also broke open the door of bedroom of Gurinder Singh. Complainant's car was also broken by petitioner's co-accused. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a witness in an earlier FIR Annexure P-1 against complainant's son Gurinder Singh @ Roda and others, and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage. According to the prosecution version, petitioner is the main culprit, who was nursing grudge against complainant's son on account of some earlier quarrel between them. It was the petitioner, who damaged the Air Conditioner of the room of complainant's son. Petitioner's co-accused also broke open the door of bedroom of complainant's son and also damaged complainant's car. Injuries were also caused to complainant's son. The other FIR Annexure P-1 is dated 27.10.2010, registered more than nine Crl. Misc. No. M-30536 of 2011 (O&M) 3 months prior to the instant FIR. The said FIR cannot be said to be immediate cause for the instant FIR nor it can be said at this stage that the complainant himself damaged his own Air Conditioner, car and door of the bedroom and complainant's son self-suffered the injuries and all this was done to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Keeping in view all the circumstances and the role of the petitioner, who, according to the prosecution version, is the main accused, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner, in my opinion, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. December 21, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE