Crl.M. No. M- 738 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M- 738 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.1.2011 ... Manjinder Singh @ Sonu and another ................Petitioners vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Sh. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. S. S. Bhinder, Senior Additional Advocate General with Sh. Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... K.C. Puri, J. Manjinder Singh @ Sonu and Inderbir Singh @ Rimpi have applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 99 dated 15.6.2008 under Sections 148, 450, 302, 506, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Tanda, Hoshiarpur. As per allegation in the FIR, the role attributed to petitioner No.1 Manjinder Singh @ Sonu is that he has given Datar blow on the deceased which hit on the back side of left shoulder. Petitioner No. 2 Inderbir Singh @ Rimpi is stated to have given Kirpan blow to the deceased which hit on the right thigh. Corresponding injuries were Crl.M. No. M- 738 of 2011 -2- found on the postmortem of the deceased. The bail application of Inderbir Singh @ Rimpi was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2008 passed in Crl. M.No. M-26249 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners have been declared innocent on 15.1.2009 i.e. After the decision of the bail application. It is further contended that in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in the summoning order, the name has been mentioned as Charanjit @ Rimpi. So, the identity of Rimpi is in dispute. The petitioners have been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. and their custodial interrogation is not required. So, they are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. The prayer has been opposed. I have considered the said submission made by counsel for the petitioner but do not find any force in that submission. Bail application of Inderbir Singh @ Rimpi has already been dismissed. Both the petitioners have taken active part in the occurrence. Report of the DSP declaring the petitioners innocent cannot be taken as a gospel truth, as the statements of eye witnesses have not been considered by DSP. So, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 19.1.2011 Judge chugh