CRM No. M-20059 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-20059 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2009 Dharam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.21 dated 18th February, 2009, under Sections 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Tapa Mandi, District Barnala. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Gurnam Singh. He alleged that on 17th February, 2009, he along with his brother was going to the fields. At about 12.30 P.M., they were attacked by the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner gave a Gandasa blow on the head of the complainant which resulted in injury, which was found dangerous to life. The injury was a fracture on the left parietal bone extending to lower temporal bone. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail as co-accused have been CRM No. M-20059 of 2009 2 granted the concession of bail. He has further submitted that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. He has relied upon judgments Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 105 and Kishori & others vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 726 in support of his arguments. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner is very serious in nature. He has submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner intentionally hit the complainant on the head with Gandasa knowing very well that the same could cause his death, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The accused gave a Gandasa blow on the head of complainant causing an injury stated to be dangerous to life. The injury was a fracture on the parietal bone extending to lower temporal bone. It is clear that the said injury could have proved fatal but for timely medical intervention. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel, are not relevant as they have been delivered at the stage of appeal against conviction. Contention of the counsel that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out, is misconceived. The petition is devoid of merits. The same is hereby CRM No. M-20059 of 2009 3 dismissed. However, the observation made while dismissing this petition, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 08, 2009 'rajpal'