Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. 126 dated 5.6.2000 has been registered at Police Station, Ajnala under Sections 307, 506, 427, 148, 149 I.P.C. and under the Arms Act on the statement of Uttam Singh wherein the following material allegations are found : Complainants brother - Gurdip Singh being the Sarpanch of the village, wanted to create an exit for the dirty water into the field of the Panchayat, but Ranbir Singh (2nd petitioner herein) who is a Member of the Panchayat, was stopping him from constructing the water course. 2. On 5.6.2000, at 5.30 a.m., 2nd petitioner Ranbir Singh, Ist petitioner- Mohan Singh and others came in atractor and tried to demolish the water course, and the wall of the water course on the southern side was shaken. Then at about 6 a.m. 2nd petitioner-Ranbir Singh, Daljit Singh, Ist petitioner- Mohan Singh each armed with a gun, Harpal Singh and others came with a tractor and Harpal Singh challenged that they are going to demolish the dirty water course and if anybody had the courage, then he can stop it. On this, the complainant, Dalip Singh, Gurmej Singh and Piara Singh came to the spot. On hearing the noise, lot of people including children had collected there. The petitioners and Dalbir Singh fired at the complainant and others 3/4 shots. The pellets hit advocate left eye, near eye brow of the complainant; below the left shoulder of Tej Kaur; on the left elbow, above the right shoulder and right leg of Avtar Singh; on the right wrist of Major Singh; on the right wrist of Jasbir Singh, on the right flank and right shoulder of Dilbag Singh. They raised a lalkara, demolished the water course and went away. 3. The application of the petitioners--Mohan Singh and Ranbir Singh for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. That is why the petitioners have approached this court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the same relief. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case of cross versions. That is why the petitioners have approached this court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the same relief. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case of cross versions. He points out that 2nd petitioner- Ranbir Singh had himself given a statement to the police in which he had stated as follows :- On 5.6.2000, 2nd petitioner - Ranbir Singh and Nirmal Singh went to their land in their tractor for ploughing the lands, that Ranbir Singh, after leaving Nirmal Singh in the land, was going back to the village for bringing tea and water, that when he reached near the pucca water course, Bir Singh met him, and they were going to the village. At about 6.30 a.m., when they reached at the turn which goes to their house, Uttam Singh (Complainant) in the present F.I.R.) armed with a 12 bore gun, Gurdip Singh armed with a kirpan. Satnam Singh armed with a 12 bore gun came there. Gurdip Singh raised a lalkara that they will teach a lesson for damaging the water course. Uttam Singh fired a shot with his gun upon Ranbir Singh, which hit on his right cheek and also left side of chest. Bir Singh was given a kirpan blow by Mohan Singh on his left arm. While Gurdip Singh gave a dang blow on his left arm. Satnam Singh fired 2 shots in the air. The motive for this incident is said to be that Gurdip Singh, the Sarpanch, was constructing the water course illegally which Ranbir Singh as pointed out, was trying to stop. 6. Pointing out these cross versions, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the sides have been injured in this incident alleged by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out to annexure P-2, the medico-legal report relating to Ranbir Singh, who was examined on 5.6.2000, wherein it has been mentioned that he had (1) a lacerated wound on the right molar region, (2) a lacerated wound on the left side of chest, and that the injuries were caused by a gun shot. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the injuries allegedly caused by the petitioners are also simple. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the injuries allegedly caused by the petitioners are also simple. 7. But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that there are 13 accused in this case, that 7 persons on the complainants side have been injured. But complainant- Uttam Singh himself has suffered an injury on the left eye brow, and that the opinion of the doctor with regard to the same has been reserved. He also points out that these injuries have been caused by the petitioners by using a gun each in view of the objection by the 2nd petitioner-Ranbir Singh regarding the construction of the water course and leaving of the water in the panchayat land. He also points out that even in the cross versions, this motive has been mentioned, as pointed out already. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant has been referred to the P.G.I. and has also been operated upon for the injury on the left eye. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant has even lost the eye sight. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that even the children and women have suffered gun shot injuries at the hands of the petitioners. She points out that Bhag Singh, a child of 12 years, has suffered a fire arm injuries on the upper arm and left shoulder; that Tej Kaur, a 75 years old lady, has suffered injuries on the left shoulder and on the front of the chest; Jagdip Singh aged 17 years has suffered an injury on the right forearm, while Avtar Singh has suffered 3 injuries, one on the right forearm, the second on the left leg and the third on the right shoulder. She also contends that petitioners attempted to destroy the water course and had also committed these offences. 8. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. 9. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.