Criminal Misc. No. M-19241 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19241 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.7.2011 Bhoriya and others .. Petitioners vs State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail in Criminal Complaint No. 336-I, dated 24.12.2009, in which vide order dated 15.4.2011, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 506, 148, 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had been specifically named in the FIR, however, in investigation it was found that they were not involved in the alleged offence and it was only Sheel @ Satish and Kashmir, who were found to be involved in the offence and challan was presented against them. The petitioners were shown in column no. 2. Since the petitioners have been summoned to face trial, they will appear before the learned court below. He further submitted that even if the allegations in the FIR are to be taken as correct, the injuries have been attributed to Satish and Bhoriya and not petitioners no. 2 to 5. They were merely shown to be present at the site of occurrence. The investigation is already over. The challan has already been presented. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. He further submitted that there is delay of one year and three months in filing the present complaint, after the presentation of challan by the police. Criminal Misc. No. M-19241 of 2011 (2) On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that serious injuries were suffered by the complainant in the present case. He remained admitted in the hospital from 18.7.2008 to 18.10.2008, intermittently. He was operated upon eleven times because of multiple compound fractures. The kinds of injuries found on the person of the complainant can not be inflicted by only two persons. It was further submitted that the complainant was last discharged from the hospital on 17.4.2009 after the operation was conducted on him. The complaint was filed on 24.12.2009 as he was still recovering from so much of trauma. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegations made by the complainant immediately after the incident in the FIR, wherein specific injuries have been attributed to petitioner no. 1 and further the fact that the complainant remained in hospital intermittently during a period of three months and had been operated upon eleven times on account of multiple compound fractures, in my opinion, petitioner no. 1 does not deserve pre-arrest bail. As far as petitioners no. 2 to 5, who have also been summoned to face trial, are concerned, considering the fact that no specific injury has been attributed to them and initially in the investigation they were found to be innocent, in my opinion, they are not required to be taken in custody at this stage. They are directed to appear before the learned court below on 22.7.2011 and furnish their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of. 18.7.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge