Crl. Misc No. M 21114 OF 2011 ****** Kuldeep @ Titu vs State of Haryana Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, DAG Haryana Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the complainant. ******* The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.72, dated 14.3.2011, registered under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 148, 149 of the IPC, at Police station Sadar District Sonepat. On 22.7.2011, the following order was passed :- “ The petitioner is alleged to have injured Baljit Singh who was also said to have received an injury by one Sanjay. Counsel for the complainant has stated that Baljit Singh was hospitalized for 24 days. The question which arises is whether Baljit Singh had to be hospitalized for the injury said to have been caused by the petitioner or by Sanjay. Counsel for the State of Haryana, as also counsel for the complainant seek a short adjournment. Adjourned to 26.7.2011.” Today, as per the admitted medical record produced in the Court, it does seem that the hospitalization of injured-Baljit Singh was occasioned due to the injuries on the eye. Counsel for the State of Haryana, on instructions from SI Balraj Singh, has argued that the procedure which was required for the eye could have been occasioned even by the injury attributed to the petitioner. However, at this stage the above point cannot be really Crl.Misc No. M 21114 of 2011 : 2 : appreciated. Counsel for the complainant has stated that originally the complainant party had also been booked under Section 307 of the IPC and four persons out of them were arrested and remained in custody for three months. However, the challan was filed under Section 326 of the IPC and, therefore, they had to be released on bail. He has further pointed out as to the seriousness suffered by Baljit Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that four persons from the petitioner side have also been arrested and are in custody and that even as per the case of the prosecution it was the complainant side who was the aggressor party. Be that as it may, in view of the seriousness of the injuries suffered by Baljit Singh, in my considered opinion dis-entitles the petitioner to the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 26, 2011. JUDGE `kk'