Criminal Misc.-M No. 33809 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 33809 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 16.11.2011 Satbir Singh and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate, for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 466 dated 21.8.2011 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 506, 326, 307 IPC at Police Station City, Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier the offences being bailable, the petitioners were released on bail. Subsequently, on the opinion of doctor, offences under Section 326 and 307 IPC were added. Injuries on the basis of which, the aforesaid offences were added are attributed to Rajesh and Hoshiar Singh. Both of them have surrendered and are in custody. The injuries attributed to the petitioners were found to be simple in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have joined investigation and no recovery is to be effected from them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Sis Ram, did not dispute the aforesaid facts. However, he submitted that Satbir Singh-petitioner No.1 was earlier involved in a FIR registered on account of fight between the parties, in which he is facing trial. Considering the aforesaid fact, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the injured remained admitted in hospital for a period of one month. There are three Criminal Misc.-M No. 33809 of 2011 (2) fractures on his head. The injured cannot speak even now. According to learned State counsel, the injured had to give his statement in writing on 4.11.2011 as he could not speak. He further submitted that the cause of fight was that earlier there was a scuffle between the parties on 13.7.2009, for which the FIR was got registered. In the earlier fight, the complainant’s nephew had received injuries and the accused party was pressurising them to compromise the matter. The witnesses in the earlier FIR had deposed against the accused party and that was the reason for causing injuries to the injured and other persons in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the earlier FIR, only Satbir Singh was the accused and not the other two petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, even if the injuries attributed to the petitioners were found to be simple in nature, still the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. It is a case where there was earlier fight between the parties. Pressure was sought to be put by the accused party on the complainant to compromise the matter. The injuries were caused to Pehlad, brother of the complainant and the injured remained admitted in hospital for a period of one month on account of three fractures on the head. The learned court below has noticed in its order that the injured was not able to speak. He had to give his statement in writing. The petitioners were members of unlawful assembly. Even action by the police in the present case is lethargic. Initially the injured was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, then he was referred to PGI, Rohtak, however, still the police took two months to get the opinion of doctor and invoked offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. For this delay this court does not find any justification. Further it is alleged in the FIR that in scuffle ` 1,50,000/- were taken from the pocket of the brother of the complainant, namely, injured Pehlad, in addition to his mobile, watch and gold ring, still no sections for those offences was added in the FIR. The stand of learned counsel for the State on instructions from the Investigating officer pertaining to the aforesaid allegations was that the offences were to be added after investigation. Criminal Misc.-M No. 33809 of 2011 (3) The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal Desai vs State of Maharashtra 1993 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 600 and judgment of this court in Mukesh vs Central Bureau of Investigation 1998 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 820, referred to, by learned counsel for the petitioners do not come to his rescue as the primary issue under consideration therein was the right of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. As in the present case, the prayer is for grant of pre-arrest bail, where initially the offences were bailable and now the petitioners are sought to be arrested considering that the offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC have been added. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, and the same is dismissed. 16.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge