IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-34187 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 29, 2010 Harjeet Rai @ Bittu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.102 dated 26.9.2009 under Sections 307, 452 IPC registered with Police Station, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequent to invoking Sections 307 and 452 IPC, at this stage, even Section 459 IPC has been invoked by the investigating agency and therefore, the petitioner seeks bail under Crl. Misc. No. M-34187 of 2009 [2] Section 459 IPC also. Learned counsel has pointed out that the FIR has been lodged by Dalip Ram, father of injured Arun Pal Singh @ Atul Pal Singh on 26.9.2009 for an incident that took place on the intervening night of 21/22.9.2009. Version given in FIR is totally false so as to make the offence serious and falsely implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel has pointed out that Annexure P-1 is the medico legal report from which first version has come at the instance of none other but Atul Pal Singh and his uncle Sita Ram who stated before the doctor that “Patient is working as carpenter, was travelling back home when he was assaulted by unknown individual, hit in the abdomen by punches and with a sharp object”. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Kulwant Singh, Sub Inspector, does not dispute that medico legal report indeed says thus. Learned counsel however contends that the injured could not give his statement as he was in a trauma and could give the statement only on 4.10.2009 when he became mentally fit to give statement. I have considered the rival Crl. Misc. No. M-34187 of 2009 [3] contentions. The portion of statement extracted above, is not only at the instance of Atul Pal Singh but also at the instance of is his uncle Sita Ram. Be that as it may, for the purposes of bail, I find that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.9.2009. Investigation has already been concluded and challan has been filed. The case has even been committed to the Court of Sessions. The statement might not be a clear version, however, it creates a doubt in the story of the prosecution at the stage of bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be considered on bail even under Section 459 IPC. (AJAI LAMBA) January 29, 2010 JUDGE avin