IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 21280 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.7.2010 Rahul Singh and anr …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr RM Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 13.7.2010 for the offences under Sections 148/149, 323, 452 and 506 IPC; besides Section 325 IPC, which was added on 16.7.2010. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of complainant - Udeypal Singh, who has alleged that on 12.7.2010 at 8.30 p.m., he was sitting in his house when all of a sudden Yatinderpal Singh – petitioner-2, Rahul Singh – petitioner-1, Pushpa wife of Yatinderpal Singh, Meenakshi daughter of Yatinderpal Singh and 5-7 persons duly armed with Lathis, Dandas and Sarias entered his house. On entering, Yatinderpal Singh – petitioner-2 gave a Danda blow on the right foot of the complainant. Rahul Singh – petitioner-1 with an intention to kill the complainant, tried to give a Saria blow on his head, which the complainant warded off with his right wrist and an injury was caused on his right wrist. It is alleged that Pushpa gave a Danda blow on the back of the complainant and Meenakshi Cr Misc M- 21280 of 2010 2 gave a Danda blow on both the feet of the complainant. The 5-7 persons accompanying them inflicted fist blows and kicked the complainant. The injuries have been caused with an intention to kill the complainant. Injuries were also inflicted on the maternal mother-in-law of the complainant, who was standing there. When the complainant raised an alarm of ‘Bachao Bachao’ that Mahender Singh and Hem Raj etc residents of Bhudutt Colony, Ballabhgarh, came there and got the complainant saved. While leaving, the petitioners and others threatened that he had been saved on that day but in future, he would be done to death. In the quarrel, a chain from the neck of the complainant fell down and according to him, it was possible that these persons might have taken it. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact the complainant and others have come to the house of the petitioners and thrown bricks and stones and damaged the house of the petitioners. It is submitted that on that very night i.e. 12.7.2010 at 11 p.m., petitioner-2 Yatinderpal Singh made a complaint to the Chowki Incharge, Aggarsain Chowk, Ballabhgarh, in which he stated that at about 8 p.m., his neighbours along with some persons attacked his house. They entered his house and misbehaved with the daughter-in-law and women. When they raised an alarm, then these persons ran away. However, while running, they broke the window panes with bricks and stones. The petitioners confined themselves in the house in order to save themselves and thereafter, they rang up the Police. The assailants had threatened while leaving the house. The names of the assailants are Udeypal Singh, Shivcharan - Thekedar, Hem Raj, Mahender, Ravi, Raju, Vinod Korali and other persons. It was requested that action be taken. It is submitted that the petitioners made their complaint at Cr Misc M- 21280 of 2010 3 11 p.m. on 12.7.2010 whereas the complaint made by Udeypal Singh is at 3.30 a.m. on 13.7.2010 on the basis of which the FIR has been registered. It is submitted that a false case has been registered as it is the complainant side which had come to the house of the petitioners and thrown brickbats and stones. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that Udeypal Singh received 6 injuries. Injuries-1 and 3 were advised for x-ray and Surgeon’s opinion. Injury-4 was kept under observation. Injuries-2, 5 and 6 were, however, declared simple. Besides, Leelawati, who is the maternal mother-in-law of the complainant, also received two injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order dated 23.7.2010 (P2) has observed that 5 fractures were caused on the leg and chest of the complainant. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only injury-1 on the person of the complainant was found to be a fracture and on account of which, offence under Section 325 IPC has been added. This, it is submitted, is evident from the reply dated 22.7.2010 filed by the Police at the time of consideration of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Be that as it may, it may be noticed that the complainant – Udeypal Singh was caused six injuries and his maternal mother-in-law has also received two injuries. According to the complainant, these injuries were caused by the petitioners and others when they entered their house. The contention that the complaint of the petitioners is first in point of time, would require to be investigated by the Police. It may, however, be noticed that admittedly no injuries have been caused on the side of the petitioners. Cr Misc M- 21280 of 2010 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for pre- arrest bail is made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 27.7.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge