JUDGMENT Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Apprehending his arrest in the criminal case registered at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala vide FIR No.70 dated 15.06.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC wherein the offence under Section 326 IPC is stated to have been added later-on, the petitioner has preferred this petition for seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2. Written reply has already been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel in the present petition and have also perused the file thoroughly. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the subject FIR is a counter-blast to the FIR bearing No.69 dated 14.06.2020 as registered at the same police station under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC at the instance of the petitioner against the injured-informant and his family members and is also the result of the political rivalry in the village and moreover, the seat of the injury attracting the offence under Section 326 IPC happens to be the little finger of the hand of the injured-informant and therefore, the petitioner deserves the relief as prayed for in this petition. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel points out that in the present FIR, two incidents of assault on the same day find mention and the informant-injured and his family members were followed and waylaid by the petitioner and his accomplices while they were going to the police station to lodge the complaint in respect of the first incident of assault that took place on that very day and the petitioner has been attributed the injury constituting the offence under Section 326 IPC and keeping in view the gravity of the offence as committed by the petitioner and his co-accused in this case, the instant petition be dismissed. 6. As per the version as set-forth in the instant case, it was the petitioner, who had exhorted his co-accused to waylay the informant-injured and his family members and had also given a blow of Kahi (spade) to the complainant and in the process of saving himself, he had raised his hand and the said blow had landed on the little finger of his right hand and this injury was declared to be grievous in nature which led to the addition of the offence under Section 326 IPC in this case. 7. The contention regarding the false implication of the petitioner in this case due to the political rivalry in the village or as a counter-blast to the afore-said FIR registered at his (petitioner's) instance against the informant-injured and his family members, can and shall be looked into and adjudicated upon by the trial Court at the appropriate stage after evaluating the evidence that would be led on the record in this regard. At the moment, the fact remains that as per the allegations levelled in this case, the petitioner happens to be the prime accused in the alleged occurrence. 8. Keeping in view the afore-discussed facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the offence as alleged to have been committed by the petitioner along-with his co-accused in the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the present petition stands dismissed.