Criminal Misc. No. M-24362 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24362 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.10.2009 Shamsher .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana. .. Rajesh Bindal J. While issuing notice of motion on 2.9.2009, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the FIR was registered on the statement of the petitioner on 24.7.2009. Subsequently, the police recorded the statement of one of the accused, named by the petitioner in the FIR, namely, Surinder on 1.8.2009 with the allegation that the petitioner gave reverse side blow of kasola on Virender, which hit him on his left hand causing various injuries. The petitioner also gave reverse side blow of kasola twice on Surinder, which hit on his head. He further submits that in fact, the incident, in the manner it is projected in the statement of Surinder, never happened. Virender, who is also said to have received injuries at the hands of the petitioner, though was arrested initially in the FIR got registered by the petitioner, but was never medically examined for the injuries suffered by him. Even Surinder, on whose statement now Section 308 IPC has been added in the FIR against the petitioner, was never examined in any government hospital, but was examined in a private hospital.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the complainant party was the aggressor in the present case. Whatever injuries have been suffered by them in the fight were on account of self-defence by the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners have also suffered injuries in the fight, which Criminal Misc. No. M-24362 of 2009 [2] was a free fight in fact. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. However, it is not disputed that he has already joined the investigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts, however, without finally opining on the merits thereof, interim bail granted to the petitioner on 2.9.2009 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.10.2009 mk