CRM-M-26220-2011 (O&M) - 1 - ::::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26220-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:30.08.2011. Manminder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. CRM-46369-2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-26220-2011 This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.219 dated 15.10.2010, under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar in which Section 308 IPC was added lateron. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was married with the complainant who is a practicing advocate and has three children. He is posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and is having extra-marital relations. The complainant used to object to his infidelity. On 29.06.2011, the petitioner had assaulted the complainant and struck her head on the floor causing head injury which was not even properly attended by him. Initially, the case was registered under Section 323, 325 and 506 IPC but because of the order of this Court, the matter was inquired into by the Senior Police Official and offence under Section 308 IPC was also added because the complainant had suffered fracture of the scalp. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant, being in legal profession, is temperamentally hotheaded and keeps an air of superiority. She has levelled false allegations against the petitioner of having illicit relations with Bakhtiar Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur @ CRM-M-26220-2011 (O&M) - 2 - ::::::::: Mataji. It is alleged that in fact, she had stumbled over a sofa and struck her head against the wall as a result of which she had suffered the alleged injury for which she was immediately taken to Ghai Hospital which is a reputed medical institute of Jalandhar. It was also alleged that the petitioner is a God fearing man who has been falsely implicated. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail but keeping in view the nature of the injury suffered by the complainant, i.e. fracture of scalp, which is alleged to have been caused by the petitioner in a fit of rage by striking her head on the floor and also that there are allegations against him that the complainant has been threatened even after the registration of the FIR at the hands of the petitioner as recorded by the learned Court below in the impugned order, I do not find that the petitioner deserves discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 30, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge