CRM-M 15691 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 15691 of 2009(O&M) Decided on 15.10.2009. Major Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sukant Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G.Punjab Mr.Vikas Gupta,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: CRM 28912,35952,44366 and 44367 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM 35951 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Complainant Baljinder Singh is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. CRM-M 15691 of 2009 This is a petition under Section 438, of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in a cross case registered vide Rapat No.54 dated 04.7.2008 in case FIR CRM-M 15691 of 2009(O&M) 2 No.109 dated 27.5.2008, registered at Police Station, City Tarn Taran, FIR No.109 dated 27.5.2008, has been registered on the complaint of the petitioner Major Singh, whereas cross version No.54 dated 04.7.2008 is recorded on the statement of Baljinder Singh. In the cross version No.54, complainant Baljinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh has alleged that in the panchayat election on 26.5.2007, a quarrel took place in which the petitioner was armed with an iron pipe and was a member of armed gang. He had opened attack by shouting “catch them and do not let them go and teach them a lesson for restraining them from casting votes”. Thereafter, a bloody quarrel had ensued in which the complainant party had suffered injuries. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide his order dated 08.1.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the cross version recorded on 4.7.2008 vide report No.54 on the statement of Baljinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, the petitioner is alleged to have been armed with an iron pipe, but no injury has been attributed to him by use of the said weapon. Only role attributed to the petitioner is lalkara. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has filed a reply in which he has referred to the injuries suffered by the complainant available on record Annexure A-2 showing “fracture of frontal bone extending to involve the superior orbital rim on the left side and the medial wall of the left CRM-M 15691 of 2009(O&M) 3 orbit with minimal aerocele”. He has submitted that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Taran Taran, vide his order dated 24.1.2009. It is further submitted by the learned State Counsel that the petitioner is suffering life sentence in a Sessions Case No.48 of 2000 titled as Karam Singh and another Vs. State, decided by Mr.M.R.Batra, Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 16.5.2003. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly declared proclaimed offender and for that purpose, he has relied upon zimini orders referred in Annexure A-5 which has been placed on record vide CRM 44366 of 2009. As against the conviction of the petitioner in a case under Section 302 IPC, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed CRM No.17377 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal No.520-DB of 2003, in which he has been released on bail vide order dated 04.5.2004. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is no dispute that the petitioner has earlier been involved in case FIR No. 149 dated 13.12.1999 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 16.5.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. It is not disputed that during the period of his bail, the petitioner has again indulged in the present case registered vide report No.54 dated 04.7.2008 in FIR No. 109 dated CRM-M 15691 of 2009(O&M) 4 27.5.2008 in which grievous injuries have been caused to the complainant Baljinder Singh which resulted into fracture of frontal bone of head. Even if the question as to whether the petitioner has been rightly or wrongly declared proclaimed offender is not to be taken into consideration at this stage, his participation in a case in which the complainant has suffered grievous hurt, even though he is on bail in a case where he has been suffering life sentence, disentitles him the concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the bail application is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing contained in this order shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 15,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge