Cr.Misc. M 25261 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 25261 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.11.2011 Attar Singh petitioner vs State of Haryana respondent Present:- Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI, J. The petitioner has allegedly constituted an unlawful assembly and connived with other accused Sheoram, Jarnalo, Jasbir Singh and Kulbir Kaur to commit the murder of Pishori Lal, as per the statement of Baldev Raj complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the original FIR, wherein the name of the petitioner is not specifically mentioned by the complainant. In a statement of Niab Singh PW, the name of the petitioner has been disclosed by the said PW. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been vehemently urged that the statement of Niab Singh, wherein the name of the petitioner has been mentioned, indicates that neither any injury has been attributed to the petitioner nor any specific overt act has been attributed to him. The petitioner having not been attributed any specific overt act, he should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have carefully gone through the entire police record. The Cr.Misc. M 25261 of 2011 2 name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the original statement made by Baldev Raj. He has merely mentioned that there were two other persons along with Sheoram, Jarnalo, Jasbir Singh and Kulbir Kaur. It will be pre- mature to form an opinion that an attempt has been made to make improvement by recording the alleged statement of Niab Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has neither been attributed any injury nor he was allegedly present, armed with any weapon. The petitioner has joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order. It will certainly be debatable whether in view of the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, he could be held vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused despite the fact that he has not been attributed any specific overt act. The above said circumstances may constitute a good ground for grant of regular bail. For extra ordinary exceptional circumstances to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a murder case, it should be absolutely a case of “no evidence”. Dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate. It is observed that in case he surrenders voluntarily before the Illaqa Magistrate, his application for regular bail will be decided expeditiously by the court concerned taking into consideration the material gathered by the investigating agency against him. November 22 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE