IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 30137 of 2010 Date of decision : 12.10.2010 Daljit Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him initially for the offences under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC and for the offence under Section 326 IPC which was added later. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Balkar Singh who on 31.7.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. was going from his house to his tubewell which is outside the fields. At the bus stand of the village which is on the way Gurcharan Singh @ Channa, Balwinder Singh @ Dhadi and Harjinder Singh @ Jinder as also Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha were standing and they saw the complainant. Gurcharan Singh raised a lalkara and exhorted Jite (Daljit Singh-petitioner) saying that he (complainant) is the father of Palwinder Singh @ Pinda and he be caught hold of. In the meantime, Harjinder Singh @ Jinder Crl. Misc. No. M- 30137 of 2010 [2] attacked the complainant with his ‘kirpan’, the blow of which hit the complainant on his finger adjoining the small finger of the left hand. Then Jita @ Daljit Singh (petitioner) attacked with his ‘datar’ which hit the complainant on the small finger of his left hand. Thereafter, Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha attacked with an iron rod which hit the complainant on his left arm. Gurcharan Singh attacked with his baseball bat which hit the complainant on his left arm. Then the complainant raised an alarm of ‘mar ditta mar ditta’ and on hearing it, his son Palwinder Singh and Gurdial Singh son of Gurbachan Singh who were coming to their house from the tubewell also raised an alarm. On hearing the same, other persons also gathered there. On seeing them, the accused ran away along with their respective weapons. Palwinder Singh who is the son of the complainant Balkar Singh got him admitted in the Civil Hospital Shahkot by arranging a conveyance where he was under treatment. The reason for causing injury was that the accused had a grudge with Palwinder Singh, son of the complainant for the past few days due to some reason and they had abused each other. Due to this grudge, the above accused had inflicted injuries on the complainant where he was under treatment and it was requested that legal action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner with his ‘datar’ is on the small finger of the left hand of Balkar Singh, complainant. The same it is submitted has been opined to be simple in nature. Besides, it is submitted that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Gurcharan Singh @ Channa and Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha have been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalandhar vide order dated 17.8.2010. Crl. Misc. No. M- 30137 of 2010 [3] Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner along with others had attacked the complainant Balkar Singh while he was on his way from his house to the tubewell. The assailants were four in number. The petitioner had hit a ‘datar’ on the small finger of the left hand of the complainant. Injury No.2 in the medical report is an incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep present on palmar aspect of little finger of left hand. X-ray was advised and after X-ray, the doctor opined the said injury to be simple in nature. It may however be noticed that the injury attributed to Harjinder Singh @ Jinder was found to be grievous in nature and his application for pre-arrest bail has been declined. A specific injury is attributed to the petitioner who was along with Harjinder Singh had caused injuries to the complainant. The petitioner is also attributed the offence under Section 34 IPC. Insofar as the bail granted to Gurcharan Singh @ Channa and Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha is concerned, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in his order noticed that one injury each was attributed to Gurcharan Singh @ Channa and Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha with their respective weapons on the arm of the injured. However, as per the medico-legal report, only one injury was detected which fell within the domain of Section 323 IPC. Therefore, it was observed that once there was confusion as to which of the specific accused had caused the injury, the custodial interrogation of none of the said accused was required. Accordingly, the said accused i.e. Gurcharan Singh @ Channa and Sukhdeep Singh @ Sukha were granted the Crl. Misc. No. M- 30137 of 2010 [4] concession of pre-arrest bail. In the present case, there is no confusion with regard to the injury attributed to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 12, 2010 amit