CRM-M-16502 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-16502 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 04.09.2009 **** Hira Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Sukhwant Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for Ms.G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent/State. Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a complaint case, titled as “Sukhwant Singh Versus Amrik Singh and others” pending in the Court of SDJM, Ajnala, filed under Sections 326, 323, 324, 34 IPC. Briefly stated, the allegations contained in the complaint are that on 17.7.2006, at about 11.00 AM, when the complainant Sukwant Singh along with his younger brother Jaspal Singh were going to their paddy fields, they found Amrik Singh son of Kapoor Singh, Bao son of Bachan Singh and Hira Singh (petitioner) son of Bachan Singh standing on the passage. Amrik Singh was armed with a dattar. Bao raised a lalkara to teach them a lesson for laying pipe in the passage for irrigation of their fields. Amrik CRM-M-16502 of 2009 - 2 - Singh gave a dattar blow, which fell on the head of the complainant. Hira Singh (petitioner) gave a dattar blow, which fell on the head of Jaspal Singh (brother of the complainant) and repeated blow fell on the right shoulder and right back side of Jaspal Singh. Vide order dated 7.3.2009, the petitioner was summoned for having committed offence under Sections 325, 323, 326, 34 IPC. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed vide his order dated 3.6.2009. At the time of notice of motion, the petitioner had relied upon the order passed by this Court in CRM-M-13174 of 2009 (Annexure P-4), which was filed on behalf of Amrik Singh and Bao. At that time, this Court, vide its order dated 12.6.2009, had granted interim relief in the same terms as in CRM-M-13174 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 04.08.2009, the petitioner has appeared before the Summoning Court and has been released on interim bail vide order dated 10.8.2009. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of two other accused, namely, Amrik Singh and Bao, because the injury caused by the petitioner has been declared to be grievous. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the petitioner had caused injury to Jaspal Singh, which according to MLR (Ex.PW1/A) read as under: - “An incised wound 3cm. x 1cm. present on the middle of skull. Blood clots were present. X-ray was advised. CRM-M-16502 of 2009 - 3 - It is further submitted that the said injury after examination of X-ray has been found to be a fracture of left parietal bone as per the report of Dr.Poonam Ohri, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Amritsar (CW4). It is, thus, submitted by counsel for the complainant that offence under Section 326 IPC is clearly made out against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of the other accused, namely, Amrik Singh and Bao. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take advantage of the order passed by this Court in CRM-M-13174 of 2009. Moreover, after the report of the Radiologist, wherein, it has been found that there is a fracture of left parietal bone having been caused by the petitioner. I do not find it to be a case of exceptional circumstances for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail. Hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 04, 2009 JUDGE vivek