Criminal Misc.-M No. 24596 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Misc. -M No. 24596 of 2011 (O&M) Amandeep Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc. -M No. 25249 of 2011 (O&M) Harpreet Singh and another .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. S. Sandhu and R. S. Cheema, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. J. S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above-mentioned two petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR. Prayer in the present petitions is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who have been summoned to face trial in an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Amandeep Criminal Misc.-M No. 24596 of 2011 [2] Singh, one of the petitioners, was initially arrested, however, finding that he was innocent, he was discharged and released. He further submitted that the petitioners were named in the FIR, which was got registered by Devinder Singh against the accused stating that on account of an information having been received for alleged theft of a transformer in the village, the petitioners had also accompanied Devinder Singh towards the fields. The petitioners have not been named by Harinder Singh in the cross-version. They have not been attributed any injury to any of the injured or the deceased. Their names were mentioned for the first time by one Karamjit Singh, who got his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after 17 days of the incident. The petitioners have been summoned to face trial after recording of the statements of Harinder Singh and Karamjit Singh in the court. Harinder Singh has improved the statement given to the police where none of the petitioners had been specifically named, however, while appearing in the court, he has named the petitioners as well. Be that as it may, now the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. They will appear before the court below and face trial. Their custody is not required as the investigation is already complete and there is no material against the petitioners except at the most that they had accompanied the accused in cross-version. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State and the complainant in the cross-version submitted that it is the admitted case of the accused in the cross-version that the petitioners had accompanied them. In fact, on account of a wrong announcement having been made on a loudspeaker in Gurudawara Sahib in the village, lot of people collected and caused injuries to the persons on the complainant side in the cross- version and on account of multiple injuries suffered by Kulwinder Singh, he died 10-11 days thereafter. As there are specific allegations against the petitioners, they do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the only material available as on today is that the petitioners were accompanying the accused in the cross-version, which fact is also taken by the complainant in the cross-version on the complaint made by Criminal Misc.-M No. 24596 of 2011 [3] the accused in the cross-version while getting the FIR registered and there is no injury attributed to them to any of the injured or the deceased, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody. Let the petitioners appear before the court below on the date already fixed, i.e., 15.9.2011 and furnish their bail bonds. Both the petitions stand disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.8.2011 mk