Crl.M.No.M-4532 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-4532 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 21, 2010 Gurjit Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Bhupinder Singh Thind, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.7, dated 20.1.2010, registered under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Nurpurbedi, District Rupnagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 17.2.2010, passed the following order: “Crl.M.No.8202 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Main case Argues that it is a case of version and cross-version and that injuries were also received by petitioner no.1 at the hands of complainant of this case and on the statement of petitioner no.1, DDR was also registered in the said FIR against the complainant of this case. Further argues that even as per Crl.M.No.M-4532 of 2010 (O&M) -2- medical report of the injured complainant, Annexure P2, only grievous injury is fracture of proximal phalanx of ring finger left hand, which was declared as grievous in nature and was declared as not dangerous to life. Notice of motion for 25.3.2010. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. It has further been contended that there are injuries on the part of petitioner no.1 as well and that it is a case of version and cross- version and however, police in connivance with complainant is not taking any action and petitioners have filed criminal complaint against the complainant party. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel as well as by learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that petitioner no.1 also caused injury with sharp edged weapon on the head of Dilpreet Singh, who is just 17 years old. It is further contended that there were some other persons as well who caused injuries to the complainant and they are absconding. Further contended that cross version has been found to be false. I have considered all the facts of the case. The main injury is attributed to petitioner no.1-Gurjit Singh and hence he is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, without commenting anything upon the merits of the case, petition filed by petitioner no.1-Gurjit Singh for grant of anticipatory Crl.M.No.M-4532 of 2010 (O&M) -3- bail is, hereby, dismissed and interim order dated 17.2.2010, already granted in his favour stands vacated. However, so far as petition filed by petitioner no.2-Balbir Singh is concerned, he is 65 years of age and only simple injuries have been attributed to him. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 17.2.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner no.2-Balbir Singh, is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 21.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge