Crl. Misc. -M No.29728 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No.29728 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: October 31, 2011. Vikas ... Petitioner v. The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Shri Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal , J. Prayer in the present petition is for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.341 dated 8.9.2011, registered under Sections 323, 307, 34 IPC at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was not present at the spot. The injury attracting offence under Section 307 IPC is attributed to Binnu son of Hari. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is known as Teja. The name of his father has been wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Bal Kishan though he is son of Rattan Lal which is established from the complaints Annexures P-2 and P-3 filed before the SP, and IG, Rohtak regarding false implication of certain persons and also for providing protection of life and liberty. The name of the petitioner has Crl. Misc. -M No.29728 of 2011 -: 2 :- specifically been mentioned in those complaints stating therein that the petitioner was also threatened by certain persons. The complaint Annexure P-3 was filed by the mother of the petitioner. This fact shows that the petitioner was involved in the crime. Only because his father's name has been wrongly mentioned in the FIR, would not absolve him. He further submitted that Navin, one of the injured in the present case, is still admitted in a hospital at Delhi. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, where on account of injuries inflicted by a number of persons, including the petitioner as alleged in the FIR, the injured is still in the hospital though the incident took place on 29.8.2011, in my opinion the petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ Rajesh Bindal ] October 31, 2011. Judge kadyan