Crl. Misc. No. M-29940 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-29940 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 31, 2011 Gurdeep .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. M. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana with Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for injured Indersain Verma. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Gurdeep has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.127 dated 16.09.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 448, 511, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, Indersain Verma is Crl. Misc. No. M-29940 of 2011 2 tenant in a shop under son-in-law of petitioner's co-accused Surender Kumar @ Happy and litigation for the same is going on. On the day of occurrence i.e. on 16.09.2011, Surender Kumar along with petitioner and other co-accused, entered the disputed shop and caused injuries to Indersain Verma, his son Pankaj Verma and a customer Kapil Saini with sword, pipe and iron rod etc. to get the shop forcibly vacated. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant FIR is counter-blast to earlier FIR dated 17.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) lodged by Surender Kumar against the present complainant party. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rajinder Singh, contended that Pankaj Verma has suffered three grievous injuries with sharp weapons during the occurrence. It is also stated that the petitioner inflicted iron rod blow on the head of Pankaj Verma. Keeping in view all the circumstances, particularly the fact that the rented shop was sought to be got vacated forcibly and the fact that during the occurrence, three grievous injuries with sharp weapons were caused to tenant's son and the fact that the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Law of the land has to be maintained and respected. The petitioner and his co-accused cannot be permitted to take the law in their own hands. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any Crl. Misc. No. M-29940 of 2011 3 opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE