Criminal Misc. No. M-26158 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26158 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.10.2009 Daljit Singh and others .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. A. S. Manaise, Advocate for the complainant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 61 dated 30.6.2009, registered under Sections 452/323/324/326/148/149 IPC at Police Station, Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even as per the allegations made in the FIR, it is the complainant party who was the aggressor. Admittedly, the passage, which was being used by them, run through the fields of the petitioners and they having no right to use that, the alleged cause of fight was that the petitioners stopped them from crossing the passage. It was also submitted that the parties are distant parental cousins. Further, it was submitted that as far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the only injury attributed to him was found to be simple. To petitioner No. 3, no injury has been attributed. He has been falsely implicated. As far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is sought to be implicated for the reason that he is a government servant. In case, he is arrested, he may be suspended and loose his job ultimately. That is the whole object of the complainant, who is working at the behest of Avtar Singh-Sarpanch. In fact, on a complaint made by father of petitioner No. 1, brother of Avtar Singh was convicted. Even the injury, which has been attributed to petitioner No. 1, is in fact a superficial. It is yet to be finally opined by the court as to whether the same falls under Section 326 IPC or not as the depth of the cut has not been mentioned. The term used by the doctor to mention the same as “bone cut” is quite vague. The Criminal Misc. No. M-26158 of 2009 [2] injured was not examined in the hospital, which was close to the place of occurrence, rather, in a different hospital. In fact, petitioner No. 1 also suffered injuries in the fight and he was examined in the hospital, which was quite close to the place of occurrence. The malafide of the complainant is evident of the fact that the entire family was roped in. Earlier also, petitioner No. 1 was also sought to be implicated in a false case in FIR No. 80 dated 16.7.2007, in which the learned court, while granting anticipatory bail to him, prima facie found that he was not even present at the place of occurrence, being on duty at that time. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there are six accused in total and three of them were earlier arrested and released on regular bail. The allegations against the petitioners are quite serious, which do not deserve them the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that other cases, referred to by the petitioners, are not relevant for the consideration of the present bail application as the complainant party was not involved therein. The injury attributed to petitioner No. 1 is quite serious and considering that fact, at least he does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. As far as other petitioners are concerned, it was submitted that even against them, the allegations are not so simple. They have been attributed specific injuries. It is only per chance that persons, to whom they have attacked, saved themselves. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, however, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the controversy, least the same effects the case of either of the parties, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioners are sought to be arrested, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.10.2009 mk