IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-5905 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: April 25, 2011 Rajesh …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 323/325/34 IPC and sections 195/420/120-B IPC (added later on) vide FIR No.134 dated 27.4.2008 at police station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case, his custodial interrogation is not required and thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. According to learned counsel, petitioner himself moved an application before the trial court for conducting a fresh examination about the injuries suffered by him in the occurrence on 26.4.2008. Crl.Misc.No.M-5905 of 2011 - 1 – Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI- Bhoop Singh, who is present in court) has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that allegation against the petitioner is that he colluded with one Dr.C.R.Garg to get a fabricated report regarding injury suffered on his head for getting accused convicted under section 307 IPC in FIR No.134 dated 27.4.2008, police station Sadar Hansi. Heard. It is alleged that petitioner got a fabricated report of injury on his head to implicate certain persons for offence under section 307 IPC. During investigation, statement of accused Ramesh was recorded by the investigating agency. He disclosed that in the occurrence a minor injury was suffered by the petitioner which was later shown as grievous injury on the basis of report given by Dr.C.R. Garg. For this purpose they had gone to operation theatre of Sarvodaya Hospital, Hisar. A report was thereafter obtained from Dr. Garg showing injury in the left parietal region. In view of seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. April 25, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE