Cr.Misc. M 2813 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 2813 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.3.2010 Arun Powar Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case, registered at the instance of Panch Balbir Ram alleging that on the night of November 13,2009, Kuldip, brother of the complainant was attacked by the petitioners and his brothers Arjun, Pawan and one Hardip Kaur. The counter version of the petitioner is that his sister Kiran Kumari lodged a complaint on the same night that Balbir Ram, Kulip and Hari Kishan had committed rape upon her. During the course of investigation, the allegation of Kiran Kumari has been partly found to be correct and challan against Kuldip has been presented u/s 376 IPC. Balbir Ram and Ram Kishan were found innocent by the police. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the police file, it transpires that the house of the petitioner is adjacent to the house of Balbir Ram. Brother of complainant Kuldip is alleged to have committed rape upon Kiran Kumari, sister of the petitioner. It will be a moot point during trial whether the action of petitioner in attacking Kuldip and Balbir Ram was an act of initial offence, being aggressor or it was a Cr.Misc. M 2813 of 2010 2 reaction to the act of Kuldip,committed qua Kiran Kumari. Even if, it is presumed, at this stage, that it is a case of self defence or sudden provocation then prima facie the petitioner does not seem to have exceeded the right of self defence as the MLR of Kuldip indicates that only a simple injury has been attributed to the petitioner with a sharp edged weapon. Injury No.1, which has been suffered by Kuldip and has been declared to be grievous, has not been attributed to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order, he can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 15.2.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. Another condition is imposed that the petitioner will not commit the similar offence, of which he is accused of, during the pendency of the trial. In case of any such eventuality, it will be open to the prosecution or the complainant party to seek cancellation of bail. March 4 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE