Criminal Misc. No. M-18860 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18860 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.07.2010 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 54 dated 25.04.2010 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Moga, District Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a civil dispute is already pending between the parties and petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that in fact the complainant was the aggressor in the case and petitioner had to fire in self defence. He further submits that all the injuries received by the complainant's brother are on non-vital part of the body, thus, the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail during the pendency of trial. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He, on instructions from S.I. Ved Parkash, who is present in court submits that Criminal Misc. No. M-18860 of 2010 2 petitioner had fired two shots by a .455 bore revolver which caused punctured wounds on person of brother of complainant. According to learned counsel, the MLR of Rajinder Singh shows that one punctured wound was caused on the left flank and other on the left arm. He further submits that the petitioner had caused the injuries with a clear cut intention to kill. He submits that challan has been presented against the accused/petitioner and the question as to who was the aggressor can only be decided during the trial after some evidence is led before the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is clear that the petitioner was armed with a revolver and fired shots at the brother of the complainant. Two fire arm injuries were caused on the person of Rajinder Singh, one on left flank and other on the left arm. It is evident that gun shots fired by the petitioner could have proved fatal. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other party was aggressor has no merit at this stage. The same can only be gone into by the trial court at the time of trial. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, stage of the proceedings and nature of crime, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed at this stage. July 28, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE