Criminal Misc. -M 21671 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. - M 21671 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.8.2011 Mahi Pal .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 423 dated 21.10.2010, which was initially registered under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC. However, after addition of offence under Section 325 IPC, the petitioner was arrested on 15.3.2011 but was released on regular bail by the court below on 16.3.2011. Thereafter, offence under Section 307 IPC was added, on account of which prayer has been made for pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that offence under Section 307 IPC was added eight months after the date of occurrence. The petitioner is a student and the opinion of the doctor is not definite that the injuries were sufficient to cause death. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the complainant was initially taken to Government Hospital, Palwal from where she was referred to B. K. Hospital but was in fact taken to Sarvodya Hospital, Faridabad, where she remained under treatment for four days but Criminal Misc. -M 21671 of 2011 [2] was again taken to better hospital, namely, Orthonova Hospital, New Delhi. In total, she remained in hospital for about 15 days on account of head injury suffered by her which is attributed to the petitioner as he had hit the complainant with a rod. Offence under Section 307 IPC was added on the opinion taken from the Board of Doctors from PGI, Rohtak on 15.4.2011. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the injured remained in hospital for 15 days on account of the head injury suffered by her and the offence under Section 307 IPC was added after the opinion of a Board of Doctors was obtained from PGI, Rohtak on the basis of medical record of the complainant, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the injury could be dangerous to life as the petitioner had allegedly hit the complainant with a road on her head, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.8.2011 mk