Crl. Misc. No. M-35546 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-35546 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 20, 2011 Gobind Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Gobind Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.136 dated 25.09.2011, under Sections 341, 323, 326, 506 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Dirbha, District Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co- accused inflicted injuries to the complainant and also took away mobile Crl. Misc. No. M-35546 of 2011 2 telephone of the complainant and criminally intimidated him. On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel contended that initially there was partial loss of eye-sight of the complainant, but now there is total loss of vision in one eye. It was also stated that it has come during investigation that the petitioner had hired co-accused Karamjit Singh, who inflicted the aforesaid eye-injury. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Kashmir Singh, clarifies today that the petitioner had been hired by co-accused Karamjit Singh, but aforesaid eye- injury was inflicted by Karamjit Singh himself, whereas petitioner also actively participated in the occurrence. It was also stated that the petitioner is also involved in another criminal case, in which he is absconding from the Court. It was also stated that when the police reached the petitioner's house for his arrest in this case, petitioner ran away, whereas his mother attacked the police party, for which separate case has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the preceding date of hearing, sought adjournment to respond to these contentions. Counsel for the petitioner today contended that false case has been registered against petitioner's mother regarding attack on police party. Counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission regarding other contentions noticed herein before. On the other hand, learned State counsel has shown report from PGI Chandigarh depicting total retina destruction of left eye of the complainant. The petitioner is absconding in other case from Crl. Misc. No. M-35546 of 2011 3 the Court. Police party was attacked at the petitioner's house by his mother, when the police party went to arrest the petitioner. Complainant has suffered total loss of vision in one eye in the occurrence. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the question of extending benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not arise. Dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE