Criminal Misc. No. M-20301of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-20301 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2011 Vikas @ Vicky .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. R. Vaid, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha and Mr. Suneet Sharma, Advocates. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 12 dated 22.1.2011 under Sections 148/149/323/324/506/307 IPC, registered at Police Station Barara, District Ambala. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 324 IPC. However, later on the injury suffered by Rahul having been found to be grievous and dangerous to life, offence under Section 307 IPC was added. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded. The weapon of offence has been recovered. The FIR is about six months' old. Even the challan must be ready for presentation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the injured was firstly examined in Primary Health Centre, Barara, but considering the nature of that injury, he was referred to Government Criminal Misc. No. M-20301of 2011 [2] Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. As is evident from the discharge book, produced by learned counsel for the injured, he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh for further treatment. The injured remained in the hospital from 22.1.2011 to 29.1.2011. It has been noticed by the doctor in the discharge book that the injury was with knife on the right side of chest and liver laceration. This injury was opined to be dangerous to life by the Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, PGIMER, Chandigarh. Considering the fact that the injury attributed to the petitioner was ultimately found to be dangerous to life, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.7.2011 mk