IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32854 of 2011 Date of decision : December 15, 2011 Leela Ram and others ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. JP Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. CS Bakshi, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Leela Ram, Rang Lal, Banwari Lal and Hari Ram have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 74 dated 17.4.2004, under sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Nangal Chaudhri, District Mahendergarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, petitioners and their co- accused caused injuries to the complainant party. Petitioner No. 1 Leela Ram inflicted iron rod blows whereas petitioner no. 2 Rang Lal inflicted knife blows. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, DSP KR Jangra (Supervisory Officer) is present along with ASI Ravinder Kumar. Learned Criminal Misc. No. M-32854 of 2011 -2- State counsel, on instructions from them, stated that petitioners' co-accused Bansi Lal to whom injury constituting offence under section 307 IPC was initially attributed has been found innocent as not even present in the occurrence and injury constituting offence under section 307 IPC is found to have been caused by petitioner no. 2 Rang Lal. It is also stated that pursuant to interim order of this Court, petitioners no. 3 and 4 have since joined investigation. So far as petitioners no. 3 and 4 are concerned, no specific role is attributed to them. Consequently, they deserve concession of anticipatory bail. However, petitioners no. 1 and 2 have been attributed specific roles. Case involves serious offence under section 307 IPC also. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 actively participated in the occurrence. Consequently, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the aforesaid without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition qua petitioner nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed whereas the instant petition qua petitioner nos. 3 and 4 is allowed. Interim order dated 23.11.2011 qua petitioner nos. 3 and 4 is made absolute. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 15, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'