In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 23605 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2010 Sham Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Mirpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) in case FIR No. 23 dated 13.1.2010, under Sections 307/ 323/ 324/ 506/ 148/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, is made out. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para 5 of the impugned order, has held as under:- “Accused/appellant is said to have caused an injury with base ball on the left side of the face of Balwindedr Singh Criminal Misc. No.M- 23605 of 2010 (O&M) -2- hitting him on the left jaw. Injury No.1 on the person of Balwinder Singh on the left jaw has been declared as simple in nature. As per the X-ray report, injury No.3 on the wrist of Balwinder Singh is said to be grievous in nature but there is no opinion of the doctor on the police file that any of the injuries on the person of Balwinder Singh is dangerous to life. Therefore, the prima facie offence under Section 307 IPC does not seem to be made out against the applicant. The accused/applicant is in custody since 9.6.2010. Presentation of challan and conclusion of trial may take some time. No purpose will be served by detaining the accused/appellant in judicial custody for any further period. The criminality of accused, if any, shall be established at the time of trial.” The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail to respondent No.2, are sound reasons and call for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2010 anita