Criminal Misc. No. M-1743 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1743 of 2011 Date of decision : 20.04.2011 Gurdial Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Thiara, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, Addl. Advocate General Punjab. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 124 dated 14.10.2010 under Sections 307/427 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kartarpur District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been in custody for the last six months. According to him, it is the complainant side which were aggressor and petitioner acted only in self defence. He thus submits that petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. She submits that five shots were fired by the petitioner in the occurrence. One of which was aimed at abdomen of the complainant. She submits that Criminal Misc. No. M-1743 of 2011 2 material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and thus petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the material on record shows that in the occurrence certain fire arm injuries were caused as described in the medico legal report, one of which is 2.8 x 1.2 cm gun shot on the right side of middle of abhdomen 5.0 cm lateral to umbilicus. There was also blacking on the shirt that corresponds to the wound. Another gun shot which is 0.5 x 0.3 cm on the right side of abdomen was suffered by the injured. Fresh oozing was also present. It is evident that serious injuries have been caused in the occurrence and case is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. Material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail at this stage. Dismissed. April 20, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE