CRM No.M-19632 of 2011 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-19632 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.07.2011 Satnam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.45 dated 29.05.2011 registered under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. The broad brush allegations are that there was a dispute between two brothers with regard to a piece of land. Admittedly a fight took place on the land in dispute in which both sides received CRM No.M-19632 of 2011 (O&M) - 2- injuries. As per the present FIR, after that occurrence took place, when the complainant reached the Hospital, the wife of the other brother (who had received injuries in the earlier occurrence) was already admitted and her family members had further assaulted the complainant and his wife where, as a result of injuries the wife of the complainant died and the present FIR was lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are identical allegations against his brother Beant Singh and the same Judge who had declined the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner had granted bail to the said Beant Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a copy of the order dated 11.07.2011 whereby anticipatory bail was grant to Beant Singh. A perusal thereof shows that the case projected by Beant Singh was entirely different. He had been able to establish a prima- facie alibi of being in Hemkunt Sahib. Therefore, the fact that similar allegations were made against the petitioner and aforesaid Beant Singh would not determine this matter and thus there is no error in the order of the learned Judge treating the petitioner and his brother on a differential basis. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the FIR the deceased was alleged to have been killed due to head injury but in the post mortem report there is no injury on head. CRM No.M-19632 of 2011 (O&M) - 3- Be that as it may, the post mortem report which was also shown to the Court reveals that the death occurred due to assault. In the circumstances, the mere misdescription by the injured witness in the FIR would not have the effect of prima-facie exculpating the petitioner. Consequently this petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 20, 2011 JUDGE ashish