Criminal Misc.-M No.19678 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.19678 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1.8.2011 Balwant Singh and another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. The prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail. Petitioner No.2 claims himself to be juvenile as he has produced his School Certificates (Annexures P-3 and P-4) showing his date of birth to be 15.3.1995. The FIR in the present case was registered on 28.5.2011 initially under Sections 308, 323, 34 IPC, however, on account of death of Gurbachan Singh, later on offence under Section 304 IPC was also added. The cause for fight was that Eucalyptus tree belonging to Gurdial Singh had fallen in the fields of Gurbachan Singh which was being cut by Nachhatar Singh, Gurdial Singh and other accused named in the FIR. When Gurbachan Singh asked them not to damage the crops while cutting the tree, fight had taken place. The complainant is the son of Gurbachan Singh. It is stated in the FIR that accused Nachhatar Singh had given a blow of his dang on the head of deceased Gurbachan Singh. This injury was found to be fatal and ultimately cause of death as opined by the doctor was compression of brain. The injury attributed to petitioner No.1 is on the left arm of the complainant with a stick of Eucalyptus tree. Gurdial Singh has been attributed a blow with back side of Tangli on the head of the complainant which was found to be simple. Though presence of petitioner No.2 has been shown in the FIR Criminal Misc.-M No.19678 of 2011 - 2 - but no specific injury has been attributed to him, either to the deceased or to the complainant. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the person to whom fatal injury has been attributed to the deceased, has already been arrested and is in custody. Gurdial Singh another accused to whom injury on the head of the complainant has been attributed, has also been arrested. There was no previous enmity and cause of fight was sudden as the complainant party had stopped the other party from damaging their crops while cutting tree which had fallen into their fields. In the fight even accused Nachhatar Singh had also suffered injury on his thumb. A cross-case was also registered. As far as facts stated in the FIR and the injuries attributed to the accused therein are concerned, the same were not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. It is also not in dispute that all the accused to whom fatal injury to the deceased and injury on the head of the complainant, has been attributed are in custody. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that cause of fight was sudden with no apparent previous enmity and the main accused to whom fatal injury to the deceased has been attributed, has already been arrested. The injury attributed to petitioner No.1 being simple and petitioner No.2 being juvenile whose presence though is evident from the facts stated in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered but no injury having been attributed to him, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Let the petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer on 10.8.2011 at 10 A.M. to join investigation and thereafter whenever summoned. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 1.8.2011 Judge Meenu