Criminal Misc. No. M-26002 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26002 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.9.2009 Joginder Pal .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N. S. Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 101 dated 27.5.2009, registered under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC at Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner himself had suffered four injuries on the head as against two injuries on the finger suffered by the complainant. The injuries on the head being on vital part and the petitioner being not fit to make statement initially got his version recorded later on and the complainant was smart enough to lodge the FIR immediately. The petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated even though in the fight, the complainant party was aggressor and the petitioner being the sufferer. Even before the court below, he was granted interim bail which was not misused by him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the injuries suffered by the complainant were found to be grievous in nature on account of which offence under Section 326 IPC was added. Part of the finger of the complainant was separated. As far as the injuries suffered by the petitioner are concerned, the same were found to be simple with blunt weapon and can be self- suffered. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, however, without opining on the merits of the controversy and considering the fact that distal part of the finger of the complainant was separated and the injuries suffered by the Criminal Misc. No. M-26002 of 2009 [ 2] petitioner having been found to be simple in nature and further the three other co- accused, to whom specific injuries had not been attributed, have already been released on anticipatory bail, I do not find that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 24.9.2009 mk