Cr.Misc. M 33568 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 33568 of 2010 Date of decision:16.12.2010 Monica Sandhu & Ors Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. Sandep Arora, Advocate. Mr. KS Pannu, DAG, Pb Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of complainant Gurmeet Singh alleging that the petitioners along with Jagjit Singh and 3-4 other persons had attacked the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Jagjit Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 has himself received grievous injury caused by the complainant pursuant to a dispute regarding raising of construction by the petitioners near the house of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complaint has intervened at this stage contending that after lodging of this FIR, another FIR has been registered against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 on 16.8.2010 for having set on fire thatched area meant for the animal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner No.1 is a lady and is attributed a slap on the person of complainant, whereas petitioner No.2 was armed with a kirpan and has been attributed a simple injury by trespassing the house of the complainant. Petitioner No.3 was Cr.Misc. M 33568 of 2010 2 empty handed. Taking into consideration the individual parts attributed to the petitioners, petitioners 1 and 3,namely, Monica Sandhu and Shakti Sandhu can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. So far as petitioner No.2 Rajan Sandhu is concerned, he being armed with a kirpan and having trespassed in the house of the complainant and inflicted simple injury, it does not appear to be a case of pre-arrest bail. Petition on behalf of petitioner No.2 Rajan Sandhu is dismissed. However, the petition is allowed qua petitioners 1 and 3,namely Monica Sandhu and Shakti Sandhu and interim order dated 16.11.2010 is hereby confirmed qua them and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners 1 and 3 , they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. They will also not commit any offence qua the complainant or his family members. In case of any such eventuality, the prosecution or the complainant will be entitled to seek cancellation of bail. It is observed that in case of breach of peace by petitioners 1 and 3, the prosecution agency will be entitled to get the bail bonds cancelled qua them. December 16 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE