Criminal Misc. No. 54622-M of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. 54622-M of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:13.03.2008 Simranjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. H.S.Sandhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fight in the present case took place because of earlier litigation between the parties where against the complainant, one FIR was registered by the mother of the petitioner. The complainant party has already been charge-sheeted in that case and the trial is going on. The petitioner is one of the witnesses there. The injury attributed to the petitioner on the head was found to be simple. It is only the injuries on the leg which were found to be grievous in nature. In fact the story in the FIR is patently false which is evident from the fact that one Devinder Singh who was arrayed as one of the main accused in the FIR was not even in the country on that date. In inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (Detective), Hoshiarpur, it was found that the petitioner was not even present at the spot at the time of incident whereas in another inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (Operation), Hoshiarpur, the petitioner was found to be involved in the present case. He further submits that the other accused in the FIR have already been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail and one of the accused who had surrendered had been released on regular bail by the Court below. He had already joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are serious in nature. He had attacked the Criminal Misc. No. 54622-M of 2007 (O&M) -2- complainant with sharp edged weapon and the injuries were found to be grievous in nature. The weapon of offence as used by the petitioner is yet to be recovered. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner has already joined investigation. Be that as it may, without opining on the merits of the controversy, it is directed that the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 21.12.2007 is made absolute. However, he is directed to hand over the weapon of offence to the Investigating Officer. The petition is disposed of. March 13, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE