In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.3554 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:6.2.2009 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 307, 452 and 34 IPC and Sections 27 and 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Hardeep Singh, who has inter alia alleged that on 15.1.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. he and his father Sukhdev Singh were present in the court-yard of their house. His brother Balwinder Singh was on the `Chaubara' of the house where he was living separately. The ladies were busy in the household affairs. Then Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) and uncle of Ramandeep Singh, namely, Balwinder Singh (petitioner) entered in their house from the main gate. Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) was armed with a .12 bore gun in his right hand while the petitioner was armed with a hockey in his right hand. Both declared that Gurwinder Singh, the youngest brother of the complainant Hardeep Singh considers himself to be a rouge and where was he. The complainant and his father Sukhdev Singh tried to pacify them Cr. Misc.-M No.3554 of 2009 [2] (Ramandeep Singh and Balwinder Singh) and advised them that the matter could be sorted by sitting. In the meanwhile, Balwinder Singh exhorted Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) to fire at Hardeep Singh and they would see Gurwinder Singh later. The complainant under fear reached the main gate of their house where Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) pointed his .12 bore gun towards him with an intention to kill and fired a gun shot which hit him (Hardeep Singh-complainant) on his right eyebrow. Some of the pellets hit the iron gate. Then the complainant raised an alaram and his father and other members of the family also raised noise on which both the accused fled with their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by the father and other family members of the complainant. Motive was that there was some dispute between Gurwinder Singh, the younger brother of the complainant and his wife Mandeep Kaur because of the said grudge Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) and Balwinder Singh (petitioner) fired the gun shot with an intention to kill him. Later the complainant was taken to Rajindra Hospital in a vehicle where he was under treatment. Subsequently, it was revealed that Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) and Balwinder Singh (petitioner) had come in a black Alto car bearing No.PB- 11-AH-0120. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the incident had occurred at 12.30 p.m. and the FIR was registered after eight hours. This according to the learned counsel gave time to the prosecution to rope in the petitioner. It is also submitted that no injury is attributed to the petitioner and he is alleged to be merely carrying a hockey stick. Besides, it is submitted that there is only one injury on the person of Hardeep Singh which is evident from the medical report dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3). Cr. Misc.-M No.3554 of 2009 [3] The said injury, it is submitted, is self-suffered as it is contended that against the column of nature of injury and also against the column of kind of weapon it has been mentioned that after X-ray. Besides, it is also submitted that main accused Ramandeep Singh has been arrested and is in custody. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. The question as regards delay in filing the FIR, it may be noticed is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. At this stage, while considering an application for pre-arrest bail, the delay that may be there and its effect is not to be gone into. Even otherwise, it is well known that prompt lodging of a FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution version and neither is delay always fatal. The contention of the learned counsel that no injury is attributed to the petitioner, it may be noticed that as per allegations in the FIR, the complainant Hardeep Singh has alleged that the petitioner had entered his house along with accused Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) who was holding a gun. They had come looking for Gurwinder Singh, the youngest brother of the complainant Hardeep Singh. Thereafter, the petitioner had exhorted Ramandeep Singh to fire and he fired on the person of Hardeep Singh-complainant. The question regarding the injury being self-suffered is also not to be gone into at this stage as the doctor has found injury on the right eyebrow. It has been observed in the medico legal report dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3) to be an injury of 2 x .5 cm. lacerated wound with blackish margin on the right eyebrow fresh bleeding was present and X-ray was advised. Injury on the eyebrow clearly cannot be said to be self- suffered. Besides, nature of injury and kind of weapon is to be ascertained. Cr. Misc.-M No.3554 of 2009 [4] The doctor has written at only one place, “after X-ray” and it is debatable whether this would relate to both the columns relating to nature of injury and about the kind of weapon used. This would be discernible after the doctor gives his opinion on the basis of the X-ray report. This Court is not to go into the same at this stage. The fact that the main accused has been arrested and is in custody is inconsequential as it is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be more useful and elicitation oriented. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in case the gun shot had been fired then pellets would have hit other parts of the body as well and not merely on the right eyebrow. It may be noticed that in the FIR it has been alleged by the complainant Hardeep Singh that pellets had hit the iron gate of the house as well. Therefore, this aspect would also require to be gone into by the investigating authorities and is not to be gone into at this stage. Keeping in view the role that is attributed to the petitioner that he came to the house of the complainant armed with a hockey stick along with his co-accused Ramandeep Singh (non-petitioner) who had .12 bore gun and Ramandeep Singh had fired from his .12 bore gun which hit on right eyebrow of the complainant Hardeep Singh and indeed seems to be there in terms of medico legal report dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3), no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. It is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the investigating authorities or the Court as the case may be shall consider the facts and circumstances on the basis of material as available before it. Cr. Misc.-M No.3554 of 2009 [5] February 6, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*