In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 30290 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 04, 2011 Gurmant Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by Gurmant Singh-petitioner-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 75 dated 12.7.2011 registered under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC (Sections 326 and 307 IPC were added subsequently), in Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. He has contended therein that no such incident has taken place and he has been made the scapegoat. The offence under Sections 326 and 307 were added subsequently under the political influence exercised by the ruling party and no such offences are made out. It was on the statement of Balkar Singh-injured-complainant Crl. Misc. No. M- 30290 of 2011(O&M) -2- that the FIR was initially registered under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, the offence under Sections 326 and 307 IPC were added on the basis of the medical opinion. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to point out that the medical opinion was obtained under political pressure as the same doctor, who described injury No. 1 to be simple, after the receipt of the X-ray report, subsequently declared the same to be grievous. That may be so, still, the question arises whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. The part attributed to him is that he gave a blow with the help of kirch on the abdomen of the complainant-injured, which is a vital part of the body. The intention of the petitioner can well be inferred from the seat of the injury and the nature of the weapon used. The weapon of offence is still to be recovered from him. It is only his custodial interrogation, which will be in the interest of justice. No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 04, 2011 PARAMJIT