IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.35766-M of 2010 Date of Decision:8.12.2010 Narender .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Prayer made in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.108 dated 24.3.2010 registered under Sections 323/506/148/149 of IPC (Sections 325,326,307 IPC added lateron) at Police Station Sohna District Gurgaon. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR was registered against the complainant on the statement of Desh Raj, who belongs to the petitioner's side, under Section 326 IPC. Thereafter a cross case was registered on 31.3.2010 against the present petitioner and others under Sections 148,149,323,324,506 IPC (Sections 325,326,307 IPC added lateron) on the basis of the statement of one Bijendra, who is accused in the FIR registered by the side of the petitioner. It is further stated that the injury on the head of the injured is not attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that doctor, who conducted the MLR, appeared in the case of the co-accused and explained the injury i.e. the said injury is caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the petitioner is alleged to have been carrying “Lathi” only. Further there was no other injury. It was still further argued that the injury attributed to the petitioner does not find figure in the medical report. Heard. This is second bail application. The earlier bail application was Crl. M. No.35766-M of 2010 -2- dismissed as withdrawn. The present bail application is filed on the ground that there is only one injury on the head of the injured Bijendra was not brought to the notice of this Court. As per the allegation in the FIR, the present petitioner alongwith others indulged in free violence. All were armed with deadly weapons. In fact, one of the co-accused also inflicted grievous injury on the head. A cross case against the present petitioner was registered on 31.3.2010. Earlier bail application already stands withdrawn. Instead of surrendering, the second bail application has been filed. Till date, the petitioner is evading arrest. With respect to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the evidence of the doctor, there is no corresponding injury on the head as shown in the FIR cannot be accepted. The MLR has not been placed on record. The evidence of the doctor as reproduced in the petition, only mentions the injury of the skull. He does not talk of other injuries. Injury inflicted by the petitioner was also on the head. However, it may be overlapping. Thus, appearing as one injury. A specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not indulge in violence as depicted in the FIR. The bail granted to the co-accused on which the petitioner is relying, is a regular bail. As already stated above, the petitioner is evading arrest since 31.3.2010. The recovery of weapons is still to be effected. The concession of anticipatory may delay or scuttle the investigation. Therefore, same cannot be granted in the facts of the present case. Dismissed. 8.12.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE