In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M-24081 of 2011 Decided on Sept 19,2011 Manjit --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Siddhartha Yadav,Advocate, for the complainant Mr.Vikas Malik,AAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 57 dated 28.4.2011, under Sections 148,149,323,506.,427 of the IPC and Section 307of the IPC added later on at Police Station Julana, District Jind. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had given a blow with a Binda (handle of spade) on the left ribs of the injured/complainant Parminder. Initially, the petitioner was arrested on 10.5.2011 and was released on bail on 17.5.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 307 IPC has been added on the opinion of the doctor of the hospital at Julana after a period of three months whereas the injured was referred to P.G.I, M.S. Rohtak on 28.4.2011 and after his statement, he was discharged on 4.5.2011 in a stable condition. He has also taken the plea of 'alibi' that on the date of occurrence, he was taking the examination at Jammu. The petitioner was granted interim bail by this CRM-M-24081 of 2011 -2- Court vide order dated 12.8.2011. Pursuant to the notice, Mr.Siddharath Yadav, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the complainant (respondent No.2) and Mr.Vikas Malik, learned AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 alongwith the Investigating Officer of this case ASI Ranbir Singh. Bail application has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner has not joined the investigation and secondly on the basis of the opinion given by the doctor dated 21.7.2011, declaring injury No.1 as dangerous to life. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail as injury No.1 caused by him to the complainant is alleged to have been found to be dangerous to life and hence this petition is hereby dismissed. Sept 19,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge