CRM-M No. 31046 of 2011 **** Sandeep Kumar alias Sunny v. State of Punjab Present: Mr.JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. **** This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No.86 dated 24.08.2011, under Sections 148, 308, 325, 324, 323, 506/149 IPC registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. On 7.10.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this cross version case the petitioner has himself received injuries including one on the head while the injury attributed to him is a simple injury and no body was arrested for the injuries caused to the petitioner. He has further argued that a petition of similarly situated co- accused i.e. CRM-M No. 28999 of 2011 is now fixed for 20.10.2011.” Learned DAG, on instructions from SI Rajiv Kumar, has accepted this factual assertion. However, the facile explanation given for not taking any action with regard to the injuries suffered by the petitioner is that no statement was made to the police. I find it very hard to swallow. Once the police has come to know that in an occurrence injuries have been caused to both sides, it will not suffice to say that no action was taken with regard to the injuries on one side because no statement was made. The whole scenario smells of a partisan attitude of the police. Once a Court gets an impression that the investigation is not proceeding fairly, it results in benefit to be granted to the accused. CRM-M No. 31046 of 2011 -2- In the circumstances I am constrained to allow this petition. Let the petitioner appear before the investigating officer on 01.11.2011 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. and on any other date on which his presence is required by the investigating officer. On his appearance, the investigating officer shall release him on bail to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE October 20, 2011 sunita