Crl. Misc. No. M-34231 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-34231 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Partap Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Partap Singh son of Baz Singh, petitioner- accused, for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 75 dated 12.7.2011 registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 506 read with Sect6ion 34 IPC in Police Station Ghanie-Ke-Bangar, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. As per the contentions made therein, he has been falsely implicated and there is delay of four days in lodging the FIR. On the basis of the X-ray report, doctor had opined that the injuries, so found on the person of the Crl. Misc. No. M-34231 of 2011(O&M) -2- injured, were simple and subsequently, those have been declared grievous without any such report of the expert. There was no ground for adding offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC and those have been added just for making the offence non-bailable. This FIR was registered on the statement of Balkar Singh, who came out with the version that on 8.7.2011, he was going back to his house, after taking medicine for his daughter-in-law from Kala Afgana, when at about 6.30 p.m. he had covered some distance from the cremation ground of village Nana Chak, he saw that the present petitioner armed with kirpan, Gurmant Singh armed with a kirch and Harpreet Singh armed with a daang, along with one unknown person, came on the road from the field. The petitioner raised a lalkara and as soon as he reached near him, he gave a blow with kirpan on his nose, as a result of which he fell on the road. While he was lying on the road, the second blow was given by the petitioner on his head with the intention to kill him. Gurmant Singh gave a blow with his kirch on his right flank and Harpreet Singh gave two blows with his daang on his right ear and left eyebrow. The third blow with the kirpan was given by the petitioner on his neck. The said unknown person was armed with a datar and a blow with the help thereof, was given on his waist. He raised an alarm, upon which his wife Manjit Kaur came to the spot and freed him from the accused by making prayers to them. Thereafter, the accused left the spot with their weapons after criminally intimidating him. As is apparent from the documents annexed with the petition, seven injuries were found on the person of the injured during Medico Legal Examination and during X-ray examination, no fracture was detected. Crl. Misc. No. M-34231 of 2011(O&M) -3- However, on the basis of the report of the ENT Specialist, injury No. 1 was declared as grievous. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Sections 326 and 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner and that all other offences are bailable. According to her, no opinion regarding the grievous nature of the injury could have been recorded only on the basis of the opinion of the ENT Specialist. She also submitted that, at the most, offence under Section 324 IPC is made out, which is bailable. In view of the clear cut opinion of the doctor to the effect that injury No. 1 on the person of the injured was grievous in nature, this court is not inclined to give any weight to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, for ascertaining, whether the offence falls under Section 307 IPC, it is not the nature of the injury but it is the intention of the assailant, which is to be seen. It was specifically stated by Balkar Singh, complainant, in his statement, that the injury with the help of kirpan, on his head, was given with the intention to kill him. The seat of the injury itself suggests the intention of the petitioner. The investigating officer is to effect the recovery of the weapon of offence from the possession of the accused. It is only his custodial interrogation, which will be in the interest of investigation. I do not find any ground for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the petition is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 22, 2011 Crl. Misc. No. M-34231 of 2011(O&M) -4- PARAMJIT