CRM No. M-28786 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-28786 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2009 Dr. Hassan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat, vide FIR No.22 dated 28th January, 2009. The allegation in the FIR is that on 16th January, 2009 at about 6/6.15 A.M., when the complainant was in compound of his house, the petitioner alongwith co-accused entered his house and attacked him. The petitioner was armed with an axe and his co-accused carried a stick (danda). Two other co-accused were also armed with dandas. The petitioner inflicted a blow with the axe on the left temporal region of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR. Thus, possibility of false CRM No. M-28786 of 2009 2 implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. This apart, offence under Section 326 IPC is not attracted as the x-ray report shows that there was no bone injury on the skull. According to the counsel, the petitioner is, thus, entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the main injury suffered by the complainant is on vital part of the body i.e. the head. The injury was inflicted by the petitioner with an axe. He alongwith co-accused is alleged to have entered the house of the complainant, who inflicted number of injuries on the person of the complainant. The grievous injury is attributed to the petitioner. In such circumstances delay in lodging the FIR would not entitle the petitioner to concession of pre- arrest bail. There is no ground on which this relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 20, 2009 'rajpal'