CRM- M 37076 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 37076 of 2011 Date of decision : December 20, 2011 Mandeep Singh alias Mann, ...... Petitioner v. State of Punjab, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Abrol, AAG Punjab *** 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.8, dated 26.1.2011, registered under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kot Isse Khan, District Moga. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 30.3.2011 passed in CRM-M No.7908 of 2011, Gurpreet Singh @ Laddu vs State of Punjab, to contend that similarly situated co-accused was granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from ASI Parveen Kumar, has stated that the case of the present petitioner is different from that CRM- M 37076 of 2011 ::2:: of the co-accused in so much as it was the petitioner who was alleged to have fired a shot from his licenced weapon. A relevant portion of the order dated 30.3.2011 reads as under :- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that offence under section 307 IPC is absolutely not made out since neither any gun shot injury was there nor there is any recovery even of a blank cartridge. He has further argued that only action attributed to the petitioner is a blunt simple injury on a non vital part. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab on instructions from HC Avneet Singh has accepted these factual assertions. He has further argued that merely because there was no gun shot injury and no blank cartridge was found from the spot, it cannot be said that no gun shot was fired. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” Keeping in mind the aforesaid order and the facts as have been brought out above, I do not deem it appropriate to deny the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, even though the argument of counsel for the respondent is not entirely wrong. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 27.12.2011 or on any other day on which the Investigating Officer requires his presence and in the event of his appearance, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 20, 2011. JUDGE `kk'