Criminal Misc.-M No. 31043 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 31043 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Surjit Singh @ Heera and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. P. S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioners had caused grievous injuries to the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 had married with the daughter of Baldev Singh, one of the prosecution witnesses, against the wishes of her family. Even petitioner No. 2 is also married with the cousin of the wife of petitioner No. 1. They had gone to attend the cremation of the mother-in-law of petitioner No. 2 in the village, where the complainant party attacked as they wanted to eliminate petitioner No. 1. It is a case of version and cross-version as Lakhwinder Singh on the side of the petitioners also suffered injuries. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the injured was initially taken to Guru Ram Dass Hospital at Amritsar. He was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh. The family finding that his condition being serious, he may not reach there he was taken to a private Criminal Misc.-M No. 31043 of 2011 [2] hospital at Amritsar, where he remained in coma for quote some time. Even on 12.10.2011, the doctor had opined that the patient was not fit to make any statement. Considering the kind of injuries inflicted on the husband of the complainant, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the alleged incident took place on 23.8.2011 and the injured was not even fit to make statement till 12.10.2011 while he remained in the hospital throughout, in my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 20.10.2011 mk