IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 33011 of 2008 Date of decision: February 26, 2009 Rattan Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. In the incident that occurred on 25.05.2008, it has been alleged by the complainant-Kapil son of Umed Singh (deceased) that at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant and his father Umed Singh (deceased) went to meet Kurra Ram son of Amar Chand. Near the house of Kurra Ram in the chowk, Kurra Ram and Ishwar Singh were sitting. The complainant Kapil and his father Umed Singh (deceased) started talking with them. In the meantime, the accused Ved Singh armed with pistol, Rattan Singh (petitioner) armed with ‘iron mogri’ and Rampal, Arvind and three more persons, whose names the complainant did not know but could recognize them, came there. Ved Singh fired a shot on the father of the complainant and he fell down after the bullet hit him. The petitioner gave an ‘iron mogri’ blow on the head of Umed Singh (deceased). Ram Pal and Arvind caught hold of (Umed Singh deceased). The complainant and Ishwar Singh ran towards the assailants. Rattan Singh (petitioner) gave a ‘mogri’ blow on the head of Ishwar Singh with an intention Crl. Misc. No. M- 33011 of 2008 [2] to kill him. He also gave a ‘mogri’ blow on the left hand of the complainant. Therefore, it may be noticed that the petitioner is attributed various blows with his ‘iron mogri’ on the head of the deceased Umed Singh (father of the complainant), on the head of Ishwar Singh – injured and on the left hand of the complainant Kapil. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution has changed its version inasmuch as in the statement of Kurra Ram and Ishwar Singh recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the role attributed is that Arvind snatched the pistol from Ved Singh and fired on the head of Umed Singh (deceased – father of the complainant). It may however be noticed that there is no change in the role insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in his order dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P2) has observed that the petitioner and the complainant hale from the same village and if the petitioner is allowed bail then there is every likelihood of his influencing the PWs. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far no witness has been recorded and the case is fixed for trial on 16.3.2009. In the circumstances, keeping in the nature of the injuries attributed to the petitioner and the stage of the case at which it is present, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. Consequently, Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of evidence and material independently as adduced before it. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 26, 2009 amit