Cr.Misc. M 14071 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 14071 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.7.2011 Sukhdev Singh petitioner vs State of Punjab respondent Present:- Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Arshvinder Singh,Addl.A.G.Pb Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI, J. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case u/s 304/149 IPC registered at the instance of Sandip Singh alleging that on 3.11.2010 while his father was working in his fields at about 1 PM, neighbours of their fields Balwant Singh, petitioner Sukhdev Singh along with three other unidentified persons, working in the adjacent fields, were taking liquor. They were throwing the weeds from their fields to the fields of the complainant. Complainant's father Bhagwan Singh was beaten up by the above said persons when he raised objection regarding cutting boundary line from their side. On earlier occasion, regarding the same dispute, the matter had been compromised. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that there are allegations of having given fist and kick blows to the deceased but there is absolutely no external injury on the person of the deceased as per the post mortem report. He has placed reliance on the Cr.Misc. M 14071 of 2011 2 report of the medical board indicating that the deceased had died on account of coronary heart disease. In view of the above, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail, which has been vehemently opposed by counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been specifically mentioned in the FIR for having assaulted the deceased . The name has even been mentioned in the inquest report and other documents. No doubt prima facie evidence gathered does not show any external marks of injury, it will certainly be debatable during the course of trial whether on account of alleged contradictions in the medial and ocular version the petitioner is entitled to any benefit. The challan against the other two co-accused has been presented. It is apparent that charge sheet could not be presented against the petitioner on account of he having not been arrested. The petitioner having been able to evade his arrest for a long period and having been specifically named in the FIR by an eye witness, cannot be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner having already furnished interim bail bonds, he should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Mere joining of investigation or appearing before the court pursuant to the interim order will not ipso facto gives a right to the accused to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. This order will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail, after having been taken in custody, in accordance with law. July 19 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Cr.Misc. M 14071 of 2011 3