Criminal Misc.No.M-23217 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-23217 of 2010 Date of decision:-16.08.2010 Sadhu Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 12.7.2010 under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC at Police Station Patran, District Patiala. FIR has been registered on the statement of Surjit Singh- complainant. It is alleged that due to breach in the river bank, fields were inundated with flood water. The complainant and his son Dharminder Singh went for a round in the fields. Dalvir Singh was also coming behind them who was going to his fields. Sadhu Ram (petitioner No.1), Harvinder Singh (petitioner No.2) and Amandeep Singh (petitioner No.3) had stopped the flow of water towards their fields, i.e. the fields of the complainant. It was about 6 p.m. The complainant asked these persons not to block the flow of the water. Sadhu Ram-petitioner No.1 armed with a dang, Harvinder Singh (petitioner No.2) armed with a gandasi and Amandeep Singh Criminal Misc.No.M-23217 of 2010 2 (petitioner No.3) armed with a dang came to the complainant-Surjit Singh. Sadhu Singh raised lalkara and said to teach them a lesson for demolishing the blockage in the flow of water. Amandeep Singh gave a dang blow on the left knee of the complainant-Surjit Singh and Sadhu Singh gave a dang blow on the head of Dharminder Singh. The complainant raised noise “Marta Marta”. In the meantime, Harvinder Singh with intention to kill gave a gandasi blow straight on the head of the complainant. The complainant got smeared with blood and fell down. On hearing the noise people from neighbouring fields gathered. There are two injuries on the person of Surjit Singh- complainant; one is an incised wound 6 cmX ¼ cm starting from the hairline on left side of forehead running medio obliquely in the fronto parietal region on the left side of head and the second is a bruised swelling 6 cmX4 cm on the left knee joint; X-ray was advised. Dharminder Singh son of the complainant-Surjit Singh had also received injuries. It is alleged that Sadhu Singh gave dang blow on the head of Dharminder Singh. There are three injuries on the person of Dharminder Singh. One is 4 cmX3 cm bruised swelling on left maxilla zygomatic area. The second is 3 cmX 2 cm blackish bruised swelling on the left lower eye lid; X-ray was advised. The third injury is 4 cm X 3 cm bruised swelling on both the lips with complaint of broken tooth; dental surgeon’s opinion was advised to be taken. Therefore, there are serious injuries on the persons of the injured. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the cross-version has been recorded on the statement of Amandeep Singh (petitioner No.3), who has alleged that on the date of the incident his grand father Sadhu Singh (petitioner No.1) along with Harvinder Singh (petitioner No.2) had gone to their fields. Sukhdev Singh and Surjit Singh sons of Chanchal Singh, Dharminder Singh son of Surjit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh son of Param Singh, Kewal Singh Criminal Misc.No.M-23217 of 2010 3 son of Kartar Singh were displacing the earth-filled bags from the fields of the petitioners. They stopped them from doing this and Sukhdev Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of Amandeep Singh (petitioner No.3). He fell down on the ground. In the meantime, Surjit Singh gave dang blow on the back of Amandeep Singh (petitioner No.3). Sukhwinder Singh and Kewal Singh raised lalkaras to teach a lesson to them for blocking the flow of water. It may be noticed that after X-ray report of Dharminder Singh son of the complainant Surjit Singh, maxilla zygomatic region fracture lateral wall of left maxilla was found. The question whether an offence under Section 307 is made out or not is to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage either at the time of framing charges or after evidence has been led. The injuries attributed to the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. is accordingly dismissed. (S.S.SARON) JUDGE 16.08.2010 sharmila