Cr.Misc. M 34955 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 34955 of 2009 Date of decision:- 8.2.2010 Anil Dhall and others petitioners vs State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb. Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners Anil Dhall,Amit Dhall and Pankaj Dhall have sought the concession of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 130 dated 27.9.2009 u/s 307/353/333/186/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, registered at P.S. Division No.1 Jalandhar at the instance ASI Avtar Singh complainant alleging that on 26.9.2009 at about 2.55 PM, he received an information that two groups were fighting at Gopal Nagar near Phullan Wala Chowk, Jalandhar. When the police party reached at the spot, it was found that Manoj Kumar @ Nanna accompanied by Surjit Kumar @ Bitti armed with .12 bore rifle and Devinder Bains, Kamal, Manjit and Sonu Baba, armed with deadly weapons on one side and Amit Dhall, Anil Dhall accompanied by Manpreet Singh @ Soni, Sukh and Karan Bagga, armed with deadly weapons, on the other side, were fighting with each other. There were other youngsters with them. When the police officials restrained them from fighting, both the parties manhandled the police officials and even went to the extent of assaulting the complainant. In view Cr.Misc. M 34955 of 2009 2 of the situation created, the complainant went away to make a phone call to the senior police officials. Firing and stone pelting started from both sides. When the complainant turned around, a fire hit him on his left flank and got injured. He was brought to Tagore Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and that the petitioners have received injuries in the occurrence on account of firing from the side of Manoj Kumar. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record of the case, which indicates that during investigation it was found that an Endeavour car, belonging to petitioner No.2 Amit Dhall was recovered from the spot, which contained live cartridges of 38 bore and 32 bore. Datars and takuas were found on the spot. Another Swift car and one Bolero car without registration number were recovered from the spot. Name of petitioner No.3 Pankaj Dhall although is not mentioned in the FIR but Anil Dhall in his statement, made to the police, prima facie admitted his presence at the spot in his vehicle. Anil Dhall and Amit Dhall have allegedly sustained injuries with pellets. It will be a moot point during trial whether the superficial pellet injuries had actually been received by them. The presence of petitioners is apparent from the investigation conducted. The petitioners had earlier also been involved in some criminal cases. The concession of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary exceptional relief, which can be granted in rare cases and the same cannot be claimed by a person, who indulges in disturbing the public tranquility by openly participating in firing. Taking into consideration the antecedents and the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, they are not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is immaterial, if during investigation, the injured has made a statement to the effect that the bullet Cr.Misc. M 34955 of 2009 3 causing injury with gun shot, received by him, came from the side of Manoj Kumar @ Nanna. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. February 8 ,2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE