CRM-M-34340-2011 [ 1 ] ::::::; IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34340-2011 Date of decision:23.11.2011 Ankit and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Y.P.Malik, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.275 dated 12.09.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 and 307 of IPC at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. As per the MLR, there are multiple five injuries on the scalp of the injured who remained hospitalized for over a period of 10 days. It is also submitted that the learned Court below, while dismissing bail application of the petitioners, had recorded that the whole scalp of the complainant was stitched with 38 stitches. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injured is alleged to have been caused injuries by Ankit and Lalit with iron rods but insofar as Jitender is concerned, he is alleged to have been armed with a country-made pistol and has not caused any injury. Insofar as Parveen is concerned, he is also alleged to have caused injuries with a lathi. He further submits that the roles attributed to the petitioners are altogether different from CRM-M-34340-2011 [ 2 ] ::::::; the MLR. On the other hand, leaned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that as per opinion of the doctor, the injuries suffered by the complainant could have been dangerous to life for which Section 307 IPC was added lateron. He further submits that petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 were armed with iron rods and lathi and caused injuries on the head of the complainant, whereas petitioner No.2, who was armed with a country-made pistol, used it from its reverse side and also caused injury on the head of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. November 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE