Crl. Misc. No. M-7959 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7959 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 2, 2010 Satvinder Singh @ Ghugga & others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the complainant. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.12 dated 20.1.2010, under Sections 323/324/452/506/148/149 of Indian Penal Code (in short' IPC') and Sections 326/307 IPC (added later on), Police Station- Sadar, Jalandhar. As per the prosecution case petitioner No.2 Inderpreet Singh was armed with a kirpan and had inflicted injuries on the person of Rajdip Singh whereas petitioner Bahadur Singh had inflicted injuries on the person of Harvir Singh. Co- accused Satvinder Singh had inflicted injury on the head of Randip Singh which was declared dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was a case of version and cross-version. There was no occasion for the petitioners to inflict injuries on the person of the complainant party as allegedly the candidate who was being supported by the petitioners had won the election. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by counsel for the complainant, Crl. Misc. No. M-7959 of 2010 (O&M) 2 on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the injury inflicted by Inderpreet Singh on the person of Randip Singh was declared grievous in nature. All the accused were armed with deadly weapon and had inflicted injuries on the complainant-party. Four persons from the complainant-party had suffered injuries. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The injury on the person of Randip Singh which has been inflicted by co-accused Satvinder Singh was declared dangerous to life. The petitioners and co- accused were armed with weapons at the time of the alleged occurrence and had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant-party. The cross-version put up by the petitioners has not been believed during investigation. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 2, 2010 JUDGE Anand