CRM No. M 24832 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24832 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.09.2010 Surjit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 72 dated 27.06.2010 under Section 324, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. It is contended that it is a case of cross version. From the side of the petitioner, the non applicant-Amarjit Singh received as many as six injuries, whereas, Gurlal received two injuries. Moreover, the FIR was registered after five days of the occurrence and offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code was added after one month of the said occurrence. CRM No. M 24832 of 2010 2 Learned State counsel, however, vehemently opposed the bail application and stated, on instructions from ASI Shiv Kumar, that even though the FIR was registered after the five days of the occurrence, the medical report is of the same date i.e. the date when the occurrence took place. As per medical report, there is injury on the head of the injured. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner inflicted head injury with gandasi. It is further stated that as and when the X-ray report was received, offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code was added as the injury was found to be grievous. Heard. The argument that it is a cross case and the petitioner side also received injuries may not help as it is also pointed out that the allegations in the cross version case are found to be false as the injuries are superficial and the factum of the injury being self-inflicted could not be ruled out. Moreover, it is not disputed that the allegation with respect to the injury inflicted by the petitioner is corroborated by the medical evidence. The said injury was declared grievous. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is attracted. Weapon of offence has yet to be recovered. The concession of anticipatory bail may scuttle the investigation. In view of the above, there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 27, 2010 mohan