Crl. Misc. No.M-34414 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-34414 of 2010 Date of decision: February 15, 2011. Mubin ...Petitioner v. State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the occurrence Jumma had suffered two injuries. Injury No.1 is on the forehead which is attributed to Farukh. Qua injury No.2, dental opinion was sought as there was mobility of the incisor tooth. On February 9, 2011, this Court had directed the Investigating Agency to get a definite opinion with regard to the injury attributed to the petitioner. Counsel for the State has submitted that on 14.2.2011, the Doctor has opined that patient Jumma was referred for dental opinion and the patient has not taken any dental opinion later. Therefore, till Dental Surgeon opinion is obtained, the injury is to be treated as grievous. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the ocular evidence contradicts the medical evidence. Counsel states that as per the FIR, the accused have pelted stones. The present petitioner is stated to have given a stone blow on the head of Jumma. Second stone blow was given by Farukh which hit on the forehead of Jumma. Counsel states that injury on head, as Crl. Misc. No.M-34414 of 2010 -: 2 :- per the investigating agency, is attributed to Farukh. In support of his contention, Counsel has drawn my attention to the order dated January 17, 2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.M-31009 of 2010, to state that the pre-arrest bail application of Farukh has been dismissed as withdrawn for having caused injury which was declared dangerous to life. Counsel states that except injury No.1, there is no other injury on the head therefore, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner and injury No.2 is only mobility of incisor tooth and this injury will not correspond to the role assigned in the FIR. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from Deep Chand ASI, has submitted that another complainant Sehrun has suffered simple injuries due to pelting of stones. Vide order dated 17.1.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-31009 of 2010, co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Farook, Maghru and Ummar had been released on pre-arrest bail. Considering the role attributed to the petitioner and the fact that injury No.2 is dislocation of the tooth, having no external mark on the face, petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner shall furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] February 15, 2011. Judge kadyan