IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M- 5107 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2010. Sonu. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Sonu for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.289 datd 26.07.2009 under Sections 148/149/332/333/307/353/186/427/506/283 IPC (Section 3/84 PDP Act and 333 IPC added lateron), P.S. Mujessar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR was also lodged against other party on the complaint from the side of the petitioner – accused and that hence, under pressure the present FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner and some other accused. It is further Crl.Misc.No.M-5107 of 2010 contended that similarly placed accused have already been admitted to anticipatory bail. It is further contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation. Bail application of the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner – accused with a sharp edged weapon to Head Constable Dalbir and that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. It is further contended that, in all, six police officials sustained injuries in this case as petitioner alongwith other co-accused attacked the police force. It is also contended that role attributed to the present petitioner – accused is not the same as the one attributed to the other co-accused as specific injury with sharp edged weapon has been attributed to him. Hence, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled for extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. There is alleged attacked on the police force by the petitioner and other co-accused and specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner – accused with sharp edged weapon to HC.Dalbir. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused. There is no merit in the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Sonu and hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 22, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 2