CRM-M-28629 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-28629 of 2011 Date of Decision:27.09.2011 Charno . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mrs.Satwant Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.74 dated 15.6.2011 under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 149 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sarhali, Distt. Taran Taran. As per FIR registered by Swinder Singh son of Chanan Singh (deceased), who was allegedly present in his field along with his brothers for the purpose of planting of paddy, at that time the assailants armed with a fire arms and other lethal weapons collected there. They opened their attack in which Gursharan Singh fired a shot from his gun which hit on the right arm, right shoulder and right side of waist of Nishan Singh and pellets hit on the other part of his body when he ran backward. Similarly Gora fired a shot from his gun which hit on the person of Manjit Singh and the other persons, who where holding the guns fired shots which hit on the legs and arms of Lakha Singh, Kulwant Singh, Mangal Singh and Mintu. In this firing Nishan Singh lost his life whereas other persons suffered injuries. It CRM-M-28629 of 2011 - 2 - is submitted that the petitioner and his elder daughter-in-law were armed with datar and gave injuries to Chanan Singh, father of the complainant on various parts of his body. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that injuries on the persons of Chanan Singh have been found to be simple in nature, therefore she deserves concession of bail. Whereas, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was member of the assailants party, who was armed with deadly weapons and had taken life of Nishan Singh, who was present at the spot for the purpose of planting paddy on behalf of the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 JUDGE Vivek