In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-27482 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:17.9.2010 Amarjit .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Anand, who has alleged that on 3.6.2010 at 2.00 a.m. in the night he along with his friends Sanjay and Parveen were sleeping in their `Baithak'. At about 2.00 a.m., Sandeep (non-petitioner) made a telephone call on the mobile number of the complainant and started abusing him. The complainant told him not to do so. Then he threatened to kill the complainant. At the same time, Amarjit (petitioner) also threatened the complainant. After some time, Sandeep (non-petitioner), Amarjit (petitioner), Pawan Brahman, Nasib Lohar, Sarwan Jat, Pawan Sunar, Ajay and two-three persons entered the house of the complainant and broke the door of the house. They started beating the petitioner with rods and Dandas. Cr. Misc. No.M-27482 of 2010 [2] The friends of the complainant, namely, Sanjay and Parveen tried to rescue the complainant then all of them fled away from the house of the complainant in their Scorpio vehicle. The complainant did not go outside at night due to fear. In the morning, Narender and Duli Chand came and got the complainant admitted at Primary Health Centre Nakipur. The doctor there referred the complainant to Government Hospital, Bhiwani where he was admitted. The statement of the complainant was recorded by ASI Ram Kishan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and, in any case, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner. It is submitted that there is a delay of 22 days in the registration of FIR which was registered on 25.6.2010. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner along with others had entered the house of the complainant at 2.00 a.m. on 3.6.2010 and caused injuries to the complainant. Even though the injuries are simple in nature, the role of the petitioner is that he along with others had entered the house of the complainant and caused injuries; besides, broke the door of the house. The facts of the case do not warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. September 17, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*