IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. 35654 M of 2010 Date of decision:30.3.2011 Amit Kumar Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. TS Sangha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.J.S.Lalli, Advocate. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners seek concession of regular bail in a case, registered at the instance of Jawinder singh alleging that deceased Rajesh Kumar and complainant were fired at while they were going on a motor cycle and the bag containing a sum of Rs.3.50/- lacs had been snatched away. The complainant had even grappled with two accused persons, who had come on the spot on a motor cycle. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have been involved in the case on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded on a day after the first information report registered. The complainant had allegedly seen the petitioners standing along with two other persons in the market on the next day after the occurrence and the story of the prosecution was allegedly improved that the petitioners were also involved in the incident of snatching and firing. This is a second petition for bail. The complainant has already been examined as PW 1 and that he has no doubt named the petitioners to be standing on the pan shop with two other persons, tal`king to each other but despite making a statement regarding the presence of the petitioners to be present at the time of occurrence, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that it is a case of false implication, which is apparent from the improvement made by the witnesses. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the alleged changed circumstances after the dismissal of the first petition for bail. In view of the seriousness and nature of the allegations against the petitioner for having supervised and navigated the movement of the deceased and having made contribution to the commission of the crime, it will not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. Dismissed. March 30 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE