CRM No. M-13739 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-13739 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.05.2009 Jathedar Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The present petition for anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner in a case registered against him under Sections 307, 341, 325, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala, vide FIR No.284 dated 24th December, 2008. This is a second bail application preferred by the petitioner. The earlier petition was dismissed by a detailed order dated 2nd April, 2009. The allegations against the petitioner is that he exhorted his sons to catch hold of the complainant and kill him. According to the FIR, sons of the petitioner inflicted kirpan blows while the petitioner hit the complainant with a baseball bat near his left eye. In view of the injuries suffered by the complainant, Section 307 IPC was included in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the CRM No. M-13739 of 2009 2 dismissal of the earlier bail application in Crl. Misc. No.6149 of 2009, the parties had entered into a compromise and thus, second bail application was maintainable, there being a change in the fact situation. He has relied upon judgments reported as Yuvraj Gaud Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 618 and Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, 2005 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 30 (FB), in support of his contention. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not convinced with the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner. Merely a claim that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties in a case under Section 307 IPC, cannot lead to a conclusion that there has been a change in the fact situation. Thus, judgments Yuvraj Gaud's case and Ganesh Raj's case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, are not relevant to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, after having caused serious injuries to the complainant, reliance on a compromise at the stage of investigation in a case under Section 307 IPC is misconceived. Offence of this nature is against the public and not mere individual. At the time of dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail application, learned State counsel had pointed out that the petitioner was involved in five other cases. The details of said cases were also given. It is obvious from the file of Crl. Misc. No.6149 of 2009, which has been annexed with this petition, that following cases were registered against the petitioner:- (i) FIR No.287, dated 18.12.2004 under Sections 364, 302, 207, 120-B IPC was registered against the CRM No. M-13739 of 2009 3 petitioner at Police Station Patran, District Patiala. (ii) FIR No.118 dated 15.06.2006 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Dhuri, wherein an unlicensed country made pistol of .315 bore along with four cartridges were reportedly recovered from him. (iii) Case FIR No.122 dated 16.06.2006 under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act Police Station Dhuri in which an unlicensed country made pistol was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the petitioner in the area of Bhullar Heri. (iv) FIR No.3 dated 01.12.2006 under Sections 324, 325, 341 IPC Police Station City Barnala against the petitioner and his son Bhola and on Mastana Nihang for causing injuries to Head Constable Jagter Singh respondent No.6. (v) Case FIR No.211 dated 04.09.2008 under Sections 332, 366, 411, 24 IPC Police Station City Barnala wherein the son of petitioner namely Ranjodh Singh alias Bhola was arrested and two snatched mobile Phones were recovered from him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE May 27, 2009 'rajpal'