IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12900 of 2011 Date of Decision 31.10.2011 Mandeep Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS Districtg Magistrate, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. ***** K.KANNAN, J(ORAL): The writ petition is for a direction to decide the application of the petitioner for issue of an arm licence. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State says that the Addl. District Magistrate, Ludhiana, has passed an order dated 18.10.2010. The counsel has produced before me a translated copy of the order. The respondent shall serve an authenticated copy of the order to the petitioner within a week. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate action if he is aggrieved against the said order in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.10.2011 mamta-II IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-32036 of 2011 Date of decision : 01.11.2011 Harwinder Singh and others ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. *** 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) Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No.2 as his name has been wrongly mentioned, with liberty to file fresh one. Request is allowed. Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.2 with liberty as aforestated. The petitioner No.1 seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.93 dated 16.07.2011, registered under Sections 307, 323, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga. On 21.10.2011, the following contention was noticed:- Crl. Misc No. M-32036 of 2011 -2- "Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that none of the injuries suffered by the victim would come within the ambit of Section 307 IPC and even Section 326 IPC and that the petitioners have not been atributed any specific injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further asserted that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail on the basis of compromise." Learned counsel for the respondent-State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurdeep Singh, has accepted the factual assertion. In the circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner No.1 is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.11.2011 between 10:00 A.M. To 04:00 P.M. and on any other date as and when his presence is required. On his appearance, the Investigating Officer would release him on bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 01, 2011. JUDGE mamta