CRM -M No. 20262 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM -M No. 20262 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.11.2011 Gaurav Patiyal ..... Petitioner vs U. T. Chandigarh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. J. S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for U. T. Chandigarh Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 72 dated 12.3.2011, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC at Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh. On 13.10.2011, while granting interim stay of arrest to the petitioner, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following contentions were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of six accused, five accused have been acquitted after trial. One of them was juvenile and his trial is pending before Juvenile Justice Board. Learned counsel for UT Chandigarh, on instructions from SI Harminderjit Singh, while not disputing the aforesaid facts, submitted that challan against Gurvinder Singh, who was arrested lateron on 9.9.2011 was presented subsequently and trial against him is still pending. He further submitted that Investigating Officer had tried to record the statements of the employees working in the Hotel, however, they stated that as number of students came for training, they can get their statements recorded only after seeing the CRM -M No. 20262 of 2011 (2) person to state as to whether he was present in the hotel at the relevant time or not.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for U. T. Chandigarh did not dispute the factual position that the accused, against whom the challan was presented, have already been acquitted as the complainant did not support the prosecution version. The fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation is also not disputed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made above, in my opinion, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 13.10.2011, deserves to be made absolute. Ordered accordingly. Disposed of. 29.11.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge