Criminal Misc. No. M-32317 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32317 of 2010 Decided on 19th January, 2011 Sushil Kumar and others .........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Khera, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes/No 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Alok Singh, J.(Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 187 dated 24.10.2010 under Sections 147/148/323/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argues that since the petitioner has joined the investigation in compliance with the direction issued by this Court on 2.11.2011, hence order dated 2.11.2011 is made absolute. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the instruction of ASI Sujan Singh, Investigating Officer has argued that Criminal Misc. No. M-32317 of 2010 2 injured has received grievous injuries on his skull, both arms and both the legs. Hence case under Section 325 IPC was found on 26.10.2010 itself. Learned counsel for the complainant-injured while drawing attention of this Court on certain photographs and medical report has argued that injures on both the legs, both the arms are having multiple fractures and were operated upon and some screws and plates were added by the orthopedic surgeon. Learned counsel further argued that injured was given severe beating with objective to kill him and thus, considering the injuries received by the injured person, present is a case which should be converted under Section 307 IPC or at least 308 IPC. Learned State counsel has urged that investigation is still on and request of the complainant shall be considered. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant and Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that weapon used has not been recovered as yet and custodial interrogation is required. Considering the gravity of the offence and injuries suffered by the injured. I am not inclined to enlarge the petition on interim bail. Petition is dismissed and interim order dated 2.11.2010 is recalled. [ALOK SINGH] JUDGE 19th January, 2011 Shivani Kaushik