IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-30029 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 03, 2009 Tarsem Lal & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prays for bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.203 dated 7.10.2008 under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 452, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. The petitioners, in this petition, are Tarsem Lal, Baljit Singh @ Sonu and Mandeep Singh @ Monu. The allegations against the petitioners are in the following terms:- “... Then at about 6.30 P.M. I was present at shop no.28 in sabzi Mandi where they came. Tarsem, Baljit, Mandeep and three more unknown persons at once entered the shop and seeing them I went to Chobara then Mandip alias Monu gave a kirpan blow on me which hit on my left leg. Then Baljit alias Sonu gave Crl. Misc. No. M-30029 of 2008 [2] datar blow on me which hit left side of my head then, Tarsem gave Kirpan blow which hit on my left ear. Thereafter three unknown persons and Santokh Singh and out of them some one gave kirpan on my left finger, I fell on the floor and while lying down the assailants caused me more injuries with their weapons. On raising raula the assailants ran away from the spot with their weapons and during the occurrence the gold chain around my neck and Rs.8250/- from the pocket of my shirt and my mobile Nokia – 9914 9914026240 fell and were not traced...” Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that only Mandeep Singh has been ascribed injury on account of which Section 326 IPC has been invoked. Mandeep Singh however is a juvenile. So far as Tarsem Lal and Baljit Singh are concerned, they have not been ascribed any such injury that would be sufficient to invoke Section 326 IPC. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. Vide Order dated 18.11.2008, the petitioners were required to show as to why procedure as given out in Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has not been followed. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from ASI Surdev Singh, has informed the Court that petitioner, Mandeep Singh, has not made any such application. I have also considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have not been ascribed any injury that would invite provisions of Section 326 IPC. Considering the manner in which the Crl. Misc. No. M-30029 of 2008 [3] injuries were caused, on perusal of the extracted portion of the FIR above and the weapon of offence with which the petitioners were armed, I do not find any ground to grant concession of bail to the petitioners. Dehors the role, as many as 12 injuries had been received by the injured including 5 grievance injuries. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 03, 2009 JUDGE avin