IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-14914 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 24, 2011 Amandeep Singh …..Petitioner versus State of UT Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sukant Gupta, Addl. P.P., U.T., Chandigarh for the respondent .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 147,149,323,307,332,353 IPC vide FIR No.108 dated 13.04.2011 at police station Sector 17, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner did not figure in the FIR, there is no evidence on record connecting him with the commission of crime and thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that injuries suffered by Darshan Singh have been declared as grievous by the doctor. He submits that name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of co-accused Gurpreet Singh, who stated that Amandeep Singh was with him at the time of occurrence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Crl.Misc.No.M-14914 of 2011 - 2 - The case was registered on 13.4.2011 on the statement of HC-Darshan Singh, who stated that on the intervening night of 12/13th April, 2011, he alongwith a Home Guard volunteer was on patrolling duty in vehicle No.ECHO-12 in Sector 22, Chandigarh. When they reached close to a liquor vend near HMT showroom, one person was knocking at the shutter of liquor vend. Complainant stopped him from doing so and asked him to sit in the police vehicle. In the meanwhile, the complainant was attacked by 5-6 persons who tried to free their friend from him. They dragged the complainant down from the vehicle whereafter he was given a blow on the head and barbed wire lying nearby was wrapped around his head, resulting in injuries on his eyes and head. A driver from nearby taxi stand came to the rescue of the complainant and he also informed the police at number 100. All the accused thereafter fled from the scene. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, his custodial interrogation may be necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. May 24, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE