Crl. Misc. No.M-29374 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-29374 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.10.2010 Anil and another .. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Balwinder Singh Brar, Advocate, with Mr.J.S. Saneta, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * S.S. SARON, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 14.03.2010, for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 427 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Balkar Singh. The wife of said Balkar Singh (complainant) is Sarpanch of the Village. On 10.03.2010, Surja Ram and Malkhan Singh sons of Dhanpat were constructing wall in the Panchayat Pond of their village. On coming to know about this, the wife of the complainant sent their son to stop them from constructing the wall in the Panchayat Pond. Surja Ram and Malkhan Singh gave a beating to the son of the complainant and quarrel had ensued. They gave an application against the complainant, his son and others in Police Station Mullana. Both the parties were called at the Police Station, Mullana. The complainant along with his son Baljinder Singh as also Jasbir Singh, Gurnam Singh and Harpreet Singh were going in a Maruti car owned by their friend Pola. At about 4.30 p.m., they reached near the Bus-stand, Mullana. Then, from the side where the road bifurcates into two, Surja Crl. Misc. No.M-29374 of 2010 ::2:: Ram, Lajja Ram and their other family members came in a tractor trolley and stopped in front of their car. About 9-10 persons got down from the tractor torlley. Surja Ram and Lajja Ram, after opening the window of the car put a cloth around the neck of the complainant-Balkar Singh, as he was sitting on the driver seat. They pulled him down. Chotu and Dhaula caught hold of his legs. Balkar son of Hem Raj caught hold of the arm of the complainant-Balkar Singh. Birham Pal, Vikram and Balbir Singh (petitioner No.2) attacked him with an intention to kill him with their weapons. Birham Pal was holding a Kulhari and Vikram had a pattal danti. Balbir Singh (petitioner No.2) hit with a lathi on the head of the complainant-Balkar Singh. When they attacked the complainant, he tried to save himself. Kulhari and pattal danti were hit on his head from the reverse side. Vikram hit pattal danti on his head while the complainant tried to save himself, the pattal danti hit him on his right arm. Kishan Singh hit lathi on the left side of his (complainant's) stomach and Sarvan Ram hit the complainant with bricks. The son of the complainant namely Baljinder Singh and one Gurnam Singh tried to rescue the complainant from these persons. Thereafter, the said persons inflicted injuries to Baljinder Singh (son of the complainant) and Gurnam Singh damaged their car also. Surja Ram, etc., also inflicted injuries to Shish Pal being a friend of the complainant. Surja Ram etc. also inflicted injuries to the complainant, to his son (Baljinder Singh) and Gurnam Singh with the intention to kill due to the grudge of the fight that had occurred on 10.03.2010. It was requested that legal action be taken. The case involves a serious fight in which injuries have been caused to persons on both the sides. The petitioner No.2-Balbir Singh is said to have attacked the complainant-Balkar Singh with an intention to kill him. He hit a lathi on his head. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said injury is simple in nature. It may, Crl. Misc. No.M-29374 of 2010 ::3:: however, be noticed that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly that had attacked Balkar Singh, his son Baljinder Singh and also Gurnam Singh. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 28.08.2010 (Annexure P-11) while declining bail to the petitioner observed that merely because Anil (petitioner No.1) was not named in the FIR and Balbir Singh (petitioner No.2) himself has suffered injuries, does not entitle them to the concession of anticipatory bail. It was observed that in the incident that occurred on 14.03.2010 many persons were injured. The injuries that were caused were grievous and some were dangerous to life. There were 11 accused on the one side and 8 accused on the other side. Besides, it is yet to be determined as to which party was the aggressor. Six accused from the other side are on the run and 9 accused from the side of the petitioner are in custody. Injuries have been caused to both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement (Annexure P-9) of Jasbir Singh, PW-1, which was recorded in trial Court. He has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. Besides, reference is also made to the statement (Annexure P-10) of Shish Pal PW-2, who was also declared hostile and he did not support the prosecution case. The said witnesses, it is stated, are from the side of the complainant-Balkar Singh and they have not supported the prosecution case. It may, however, be noticed that the petitioners till date have not joined the investigation even though the challan against the other accused has been filed. Besides, it may be noticed that Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-11688 of 2010 filed by Baljinder Singh son of Balkar Singh and Balkar Singh son of Hem Raj who are from the side of the complainant for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2010. It was observed by this Court that no doubt, it was case a Crl. Misc. No.M-29374 of 2010 ::4:: version and cross-version, but keeping in view the nature of injuries, it was found that the petitioner therein namely Baljinder Singh and Balkar Singh were not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Besides, Surja Ram, Kishan Singh, Vikram Singh, Lajja Ram, Birham Pal alias Kala, Rajesh Kumar alias Dholla, Sarvan Singh, Balkar Singh alias Kala son of Hem Raj, Jai Kumar alias Chhotu filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-17953 of 2010 in this Court and their petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.07.2010. Therefore, no ground for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners as prayed for, is made out. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) October 06, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet