IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-21979 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Ram Kumar and another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** ORDER Crl.Misc.No. 39008 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No.M-21979 of 2010 The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Ram Kumar and Sham Kumar in case FIR No.91 dated 13.7.2010 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case whereas they have no concern with the alleged offence. The dispute with regard to property is there amongst the family members of the petitioners and a litigation is pending before the Civil Court. The dispute is that Gurinder Singh Goggi wants to grab the disputed property and has fabricated revenue record in connivance with Suman Sharma widow of Sunil Dutt, the sister-in-law of the petitioners. Learned Crl.Misc. No.M-21979 of 2010 [2] counsel for the petitioners further submits that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out as all the injuries are simple in nature and offence under Section 307 IPC has been made out at the behest of Gurinder Singh Goggi. The alleged injury could be self inflicted as injury inflicted by kulhari (axe) cannot be simple in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that intention of the petitioners is clear from the fact that they did not repeat the injury and their intention was not to kill the complainant but to cause injury. Had there been any intention on the part of the petitioners to kill the complainant, the injury would have been repeated. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the judgment in Kalu Ram v. State of Assam 1977 Crl.L.J.98 in support of his contention. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the documents available on the file. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that they have falsely been implicated and their intention was not to kill the complainant but to cause injury, cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the fact that no evidence has come on record and intention of the petitioners cannot be judged only on the basis of mere allegations in the FIR. Moreover, it is not necessary for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC that injury should be there. As per case of the prosecution. Complainant Maluk Sngh was returning along with Sukhchain Singh and when they reached near Shamlat land of village, Bolero vehicle stopped in front of the tractor driven by the complainant. 4-5 persons along with two ladies got down from Bolero and raised lalkara that lesson be taught to the Crl.Misc. No.M-21979 of 2010 [3] complainant for cultivating the land. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner No.1 Ram Kumar was holding axe in his hands and caused injury on the head of the complainant, due to which he fell down from the tractor. Petitioner No.2 Sham Kumar was holding rod and caused injury on the left leg of complainant. Ram Kumar caused injuries from the reverse side of axe on left arm of Sukhchain Singh. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the intention of the petitioner was not to kill the complainant but to cause injury cannot be appreciated at this stage as prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded. Specific role and injuries have been attributed to both the petitioners and injury attributed to petitioner No.1 was on head of the complainant. Since process of investigation is still in progress and weapons of offence are yet to be recovered, it would not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. Moreover, some unknown persons were there with the petitioners and it has not been ascertained as to who were those persons for which custodial interrogation is required. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 2, 2010. raghav