Crl. Misc. No. M- 25944 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 25944 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2010 Ajit Sehrawat ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Latika Rai, AAG, Haryana. Mr. B.S. Chahar, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Singh Saini, Advocate, for the complainant. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.864 dated 2.9.2009, under Sections 323,325,326,148,149,307/506 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar. The case of the complainant as stated in the FIR in brief is that on 2.9.2009 at about 7 A.M. the complainant alongwith son of his maternal uncle were walking on the road in front of Borstal Jail. Om Parkash tried to give an axe blow on his head but the complainant in order to save himself raised his left hand and consequently the blow hit on his left arm. Then Vinay gave injuries with iron rod on right leg and head of the complainant. Petitioner and Om Parkash and their other companions attacked the complainant, armed with lathis, rods and dandas and inflicted injuries on Crl. Misc. No. M- 25944 of 2010 (O&M) 2 their person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation it was found that the petitioner was present in Hisar on the alleged day of occurrence and was not present at the place of occurrence and was in conversation with the main conspirator Satbir. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. As per the FIR, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner along with his other co-accused had also inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party. However, during investigation, it has been found that the petitioner was not present at the spot and had been in conversation with the main conspirator Satbir. Recovery of mobile phone and sim card are to be effected from the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Keeping in view the fact that the injuries on the person of Ranbir have been opined to be dangerous to life and keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 16, 2010 JUDGE Anand