IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-22850 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.8.2010 Maninder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik-Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 27.7.2010 for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 506 IPC. In the incident that occurred on 25.7.2010 it has been alleged by the complainant Kamaljeet Singh @ Vicky that at about 9.30 p.m. his nephew Amandeep Singh rang him up and called him at his house for two minutes. After about 5-7 minutes when the complainant reached near the house of his nephew Amandeep Singh, then suddenly from the side of the street Ravinder Singh @ Ravi (non-petitioner), Harpal Singh @ Lakhi (non-petitioner), Maninder (petitioner) and another boy with muffled face carrying gandasi, kirpan, dandas, swords respectively in their hands came there. Ravinder Singh @ Ravi who had a kirpan in his hand gave a blow on Crl. Misc. No. M-22850 of 2010 [2] the back side of the head of the complainant Kamaljeet Singh @ Vicky and Maninder (petitioner) who was armed with gandasi gave a blow on the back side of the head of the complainant. Harpal Singh @ Lakhi gave danda blows on the arms of the complainant and the boy with muffled face was armed with a sword in his hand, gave two blows on the right arm of the complainant. The complainant then raised an alarm. On hearing the noise, Amandeep Singh, nephew of the complainant and his brother Sonu who had seen the entire occurrence from inside the house did not come out to save the complainant because the assailants were beating him and they threatened Amandeep Singh and Sonu not to come out of their house, otherwise, they would be killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the injury attributed to the petitioner on the head is simple in nature which is evident from the ‘Halat Mukadma’ (Annexure P3) filed by the police in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. It is further submitted that only injury No.4 which is on the right index finger as per the said ‘Halat Mukadma’ (Annexure P3) is grievous in nature. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner along with others namely Ravinder Singh @ Ravi, Harpal Singh @ Lakhi and another boy with muffled face had attacked on the complainant Kamaljeet Singh @ Vicky in the street. The said complainant suffered six injuries. The petitioner is attributed a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of the complainant Kamaljeet Singh. As per the medico-legal report, there are two Crl. Misc. No. M-22850 of 2010 [3] injuries on the head of Kamaljeet Singh, complainant and X-ray had been advised of left hand wrist and right ankle. In any case, it may be noticed that the petitioner was armed with a gandasi and had caused gandasi blow on the head of the complainant. Besides, the others have caused six injuries on the person of the complainant. Learned counsel has referred to the case of Surjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2009 (3) RCR (Crl.) 776 (P&H) to contend that the injured who had been attributed simple injury were granted pre-arrest bail. It may be noticed that the orders granting pre-arrest bail do not normally lay down any ratio and are based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the said case grievous injuries had been attributed to one of the accused who was in custody. Besides, the petitioner therein had been attributed a dang blow on the left shoulder of the complainant and a gandasi blow from the reverse side on the right foot of the complainant. Therefore, in the said case, the person who had been attributed injury was in custody which is not the position in the present case. Besides, in the present case, injury is attributed on the head of the complainant. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. Consequently, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 10, 2010 amit