CRM-M-22176 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-22176 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 20.10.2009 **** Harpreet @ Pintu . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Ms.Rupinder Kaur, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.68 dated 29.5.2009 registered under Sections 324, 341, 326, 34 IPC, in which Section 326 IPC was added later on, at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. In brief, FIR has been registered at the instance of Palwinderjit Singh, who has stated that on 28.5.2009 at about 8.00 PM, he was intercepted by two motorcyclists, out of whom Sanjeev Kumar @ Shama and Harpreet @ Pintu (petitioner) gave him injuries with sharp edged weapons. The injury caused by Harpreet @ Pintu (petitioner) is with Datar on his head above his ear, below the right arm elbow and below the left arm elbow. CRM-M-22176 of 2009 - 2 - Before coming to this Court, petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide his order dated 05.08.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that initially a case was registered under Sections 324, 341 and 34 IPC in which the petitioner was released on bail. Later on Section 326 IPC has been added, which necessitated filing of an application for anticipatory bail, which has been rejected by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case against the petitioner has been planted whereas the other co-accused, namely, Sanjiv Kumar @ Shama has already been released on regular bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been granted interim bail in terms of order dated 13.08.2009 and has joined the investigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant has submitted that the injured- complainant has suffered fractures on 4th and 5th Metacarpal and on the Shaft of the Ulna. The injuries are attributed to the petitioner. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence in which the petitioner has been beaten by two persons with sharp edged weapon resulting into multiple fractures and that recovery of weapon is yet to be effected. I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 20, 2009 JUDGE vivek