IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-37123 of 2011 Date of decision : December 20, 2011 Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RK Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Charanjit Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 3 dated 5.1.2011 under sections 452, 324, 323, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC and later on added section 308 IPC, registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Large number of persons attacked the complainant party and caused injuries. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner although belonging to the village of the complainant was not named in the FIR and while naming some assailants, it was mentioned that there were 7/8 more boys whereas the petitioner is aged more than 50 years. Criminal Misc. No. M-37123 of 2011 -2- It was also contended that counter version was given by petitioner's son Rajwinder Kumar vide report Annexure P/1 even prior to the lodging of FIR Annexure P/2. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Karam Singh contended that the complainant in his supplementary statement as well as other injured persons in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. named the petitioner who is responsible for causing injury constituting offence under section 308 IPC. It was also stated that FIR was registered during the night at 1.40 AM whereas version Annexure P/1 was given during day time at 12.50 PM i.e. 11 hours after recording the FIR. Injury falling within the purview of section 308 IPC is attributed to the petitioner. Large number of persons entered house of complainant's brother and caused injuries to many persons. Keeping in view the nature of offences and the role attributed to the petitioner but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner, in my opinion does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 20, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'