IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. M-10406 OF 2011 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 06.04.2011 Manish @ Munesh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 126. The said authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In that authority it has been mentioned that powers for grant of anticipatory bail should be exercised in the light of circumstances of each case. The facts of the present case do not make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail as the petitioner has given injuries which were declared grevious in nature. The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. So, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. APRIL 06, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE