IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 20837 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2010. Joginder Singh and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-21426 of 2010(O&M) Kulwant Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) 3. Crl.Misc.No. M-22687 of 2010(O&M) Chanchal Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Gagan Pradeep S.Bal, Advocate for the petitioners. CRM No.M-20837 of 2010 Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr.D.A.G., Punjab Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.69 dated 03.07.2010, under Sections 326/324/325/452/506/427/148/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that they alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons i.e. Datar and Gandasi entered in the house of complainant. Parties are closely related. One of the petitioners -Balwant Singh and complainant –Kundan Singh are real brothers. After entering the house of complainant, they caused injuries to complainant and his daughter-in-law, Paramjit Kaur. Five injuries have been received by Kundan Singh and two injuries have been received by Paramjit Kaur including grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon. Though it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that dispute has since been compromised. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the complainant that the said compromise was not adhered to by the petitioners-accused. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that there are serious allegations against petitioners-accused 2 CRM No.M-20837 of 2010 and specific allegations are attributed to them. Further contended that no accused has been arrested so far in this case. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra- ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners- accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant applications for anticipatory bail filed by Joginder Singh, Balwant Singh, Kulwant Singh and Chanchal Singh are, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim orders dated 22.07.2010 and 29.07.2010 already granted in their favour stand vacated. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 13, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3