Crl. Misc. No.M-5839 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-5839 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 05.07.2011 Hari Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. On February 24, 2011, while issuing notice of motion the fol- lowing contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the FIR in the case is recorded on the statement of the complainant-Subhash Arora. It has been alleged by the complainant that he knows Heri who had taken a loan of Rs.8 lacs from him in the year 2009. He had promised to return the loan in March, 2010 but had been putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. On demands being made, he said that he did not owe any money. It is alleged that on 20.01.2011 at about 9.15 p.m., when the complainant was returning home after closing his shop in Sector 20 and he was in front of House No.32, then, someone threw a brick at his head from the back. The complainant saw that there were two boys and one of them had thrown the brick; besides, they Crl. Misc. No.M-5839 of 2011 2 threatened to kill him and fled away. The boys were in the age group of 20 to 22 years with cut-hair. The com- plainant can recognize them if brought before him. The complainant received injuries on his head and mouth. He called his son who brought him to Sector 32 Hospi- tal, Chandigarh. The complainant, it is submitted has named the petitioner as according to the complainant a sum of Rs.8 lacs had been given in loan to the petitioner, which he had promised to return by March, 2010 but he did not return the same. The complainant had demanded his money back about 15 days earlier to the incident on telephone but the petitioner got angry and said that he did not owe any money. Besides, the petitioner said that he would teach him a lesson and would get the son of the complainant abducted. It is submitted that though the threat was given 15 days earlier but no complaint was lodged by the complainant. The petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. The injuries are simple. The offence under Section 506 IPC, it is stated, is not bail- able in U.T., Chandigarh. In any case, it is stated that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation”. It is a case of the petitioner that he had appeared before the In- vestigating Officer twice and stated whatever he had knowledge, whereas the stand of the learned counsel for the State is that the petitioner is not dis- closing the name of the persons who had in fact hit the complainant with brick. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of loan transaction between the parties, his name has been men- tioned in the FIR otherwise as per the allegation made in the FIR he was not present at the spot and as such he cannot be aware of the persons, who had hit the complainant. The injuries are found to be simple in nature. Considering the fact that the injuries on the person of the com- plainant were found to be simple in nature, I find that custodial interroga- Crl. Misc. No.M-5839 of 2011 3 tion of the petitioner is not required and accordingly interim bail granted to the petitioner on 24.02.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 05.07.2011 sharmila