Crl.Misc No M- 25364 of 2010 Gurpeet Singh V. State of Punjab Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Crl.Misc.No. 45253 of 2010 Crl.Misc.is allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No. M-25364 of 2010 The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner Gurpreet Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 54 dated 23.6.2010 under Sections 323/324/326/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of version and cross-version and petitioner also received injuries and the injury attributed to him is manipulated and same can be self- inflicted. Learned counsel also submits that civil litigation is pending between the parties and being cross-version case, it is to be seen as to which party was more aggressive. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that co-accused Harpreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. I have heard the augments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was armed with a sword and the injury attributed to the present petitioner was Crl.Misc No M- 25364 of 2010 [2] declared grievous in nature which was on the little finger of the complainant. In the present case, the case was registered on the basis of statement of Lal Singh who mentioned that he along with his son Jasbir Singh was sitting in front of his shop. Accused Gurpeet Singh, Jaswinder Kaur and Satwinder Kaur along with other unidentified persons attacked the complainant and his son. The present petitioner was having sword in his hand and attacked the complainant and while saving himself, injury was caused on the little finger of the complainant which was declared grievous. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to other co- accused is of no help to him as the other co-accused caused injury which was simple in nature, whereas the injury caused by the petitioner is grievous in nature. As per allegations in the FIR, the injury was caused with a sword but the complainant saved himself but instead of that, it caused injury to the little finger. So the case of the petitioner cannot be equated at par with the other co-accused. No doubt, there is cross version of the occurrence but since the injury upon which section 326 IPC was made out has been attributed to the present petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of concession of anticipatory bail. It has been held in may judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as various High Courts that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of extra-ordinary character and that should be exercised Crl.Misc No M- 25364 of 2010 [3] only in exceptional cases. Moreover, limitations have been imposed in Section 437 Cr.P.C. that petitioner must make out a special case for exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. In the present case, no case of special circumstance or of exceptional nature has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view seriousness of the allegations and the injury attributed to the present petitioner, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 31, 2010 JUDGE raghav