Crl. Misc. -M No. 22328 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 22328 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.8.2011 Onkar Singh @ Kari and another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.P.S. Mithewal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that alleged occurrence in the present case had taken place on 8.4.2011. Cause of fight is shown to be turn of water supply from tube-well to irrigate the fields. The FIR was got registered on 9.5.2011. It is stated in the FIR that parties were trying to compromise the matter. Both the parties have their fields adjoining to each other. Initially the petitioners were released on bail as all the offences were bailable. However, later on on an opinion from the doctor received on 24.6.2011, the offence under Section 326 IPC was added on account of head injury suffered by the complainant. The submission was that even the petitioners had also suffered head injury which was similar in nature. The cross version has also been recorded on the complaint of the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that injury on the fore-head of the complainant was found to be serious immediately and X-ray of skull was advised. X-ray of the injured was conducted on 9.4.2011 where the doctor opined that fracture of the skull in the right frontal region is seen. However, no definite opinion has been given regarding the age of this fracture. MRI/CT Scan was advised. CT Scan was conducted on 24.6.2011 and the doctor opined that the age of skull fracture can not be determined by CT Scans. However, the injury can be presumed to Crl. Misc. -M No. 22328 of 2011 -2- be fresh. Considering the injury suffered by the complainant, which is a fracture in skull, offence under Section 326 IPC was added and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that neither the doctor, who conducted the X-ray nor the doctor, who conducted the CT Scan opined definitely that the injury suffered by the complainant was fresh; the CT Scan itself was conducted 2-1/2 months after the date of alleged occurrence; the petitioners had also suffered head injury and the cross version was also recorded and further the dispute was on account of turn of water supply from tube-well for irrigating the fields which happened at the spur of moment with no previous enmity, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Let the petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer on 19.8.2011 at 10 A.M. In case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 9.8.2011 Judge Meenu