TARSEM LAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Sangha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this is a case of free fight by the two parties, where bricks were exchanged. He further submits that the petitioners had also lodged complaint vide DD No. 52 dated 11th July, 1995 at 11.30 p.m. whereas complaint filed by the other side was vide DD No. 54 of the same date at 12.05 a.m. He further submits that the injured Dilwinder Kaur was taken to PGI Hospital from where she was discharged and thereafter she was got admitted by her parents in the Command Hospital at their own sweet will. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that in the facts of the present case, Section 308 IPC is not applicable as there was no attempt to commit any culpable homicide by any one.

(2.) MR . Lamba, learned standing counsel for the Union Territory Chandigarh, however, submits that the injury inflicted on the head of Dilwinder Kaur was on a vital part of the body and after CT scan of the injury, the doctor in the Hospital gave the opinion that the injured sustained head injury which revealed a depressed fracture of left temporal bone and this injury was of a serious nature and could have endangered her life. He also submitted that the injured had remained admitted in the hospital for 15 days. Lastly, he contended that in the present case, the petitioners have prayed for the concession of anticipatory bail for which they are not entitled. On query from the court, he, however, submitted that as per the statement of the injured Dilwinder Kaur, the said injury was inflicted by Jai Chand.

(3.) IN view of these facts, I direct that except Jai Chand, all the other petitioners, in case of arrest, shall be released on bail on each one of them furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail with regard to Jai Chand is dismissed.