In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-3284 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:2.2.2011 Kaka Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Harmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 325, 427, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Sarwan Singh, who is In-charge of liquor vend near Bus Stand of Village Chhatt. The complainant Sarwan Singh along with his co-workers Ashwani and Komal were at the liquor vend on 7.11.2010. At about 9.30 p.m., Bimlesh, who is worker at the Dayalpur liquor vend along with Pinku, who is worker at Satabgarh liquor vend had come to him along with the collection that had been made for the entire day. Drivers of the car, namely, Sukhwinder alias Sikander and Sunny were sitting in the liquor vend. After counting the cash they were all taking their meal inside the vend. At around 10.00 p.m. Harpreet Singh alias Jeetu, Kuldeep Singh, Naresh Kumar came on motorcycle No.HR-99T-0173; besides Joginder Singh and Chhota sons of Arjun Singh as also Kaka (petitioner) came on another motorcycle No.PB- Cr. Misc. No.M-3284 of 2011 [2] 70-8616. They were all armed with Dandas and iron rods. In the meantime, Sukha, Teja, Magu and Deepa also came there. At that moment, Harpreet Singh alias Jeetu and Kuldeep Singh raised a Lalkara that the complainant be not left today. Harpreet Singh alias Jeetu attacked the complainant with iron rods in their hands which landed on right side of head of the complainant. Joginder Singh attacked the complainant with a stick which hit on his left leg below the joints. Sukha also attacked the complainant with a stick which hit on the left shoulder of the complainant. Naresh Kumar, Chhota, Kaka (petitioner), Teja, Magu and Deepa who were carrying sticks also started beating the complainant. The complainant then raised a noise and his co-workers saved him from the assailants. Had they not saved the complainant, the assailants would have caused more injuries to him. In the meantime, the above said persons ran away from the spot along with the weapons. After that the workers of the liquor vend took the complainant in a car and got him admitted in Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi. There he was given stitches on his head and was referred to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. It is alleged that the assailants had pulled the complainant from inside the liquor vend and also destroyed a number of bottles in the liquor vend. The co-workers of the complainant were also beaten. During the fight, the complainant suffered fractures on his left leg and left shoulder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations are vague and baseless and, in any case, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner Kaka Singh. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner is resident of Village Chhatt who had gone to liquor vend to buy liquor. In the meantime, he saw that a fight had ensued in the Tavern Cr. Misc. No.M-3284 of 2011 [3] (Ahata) between some people. The petitioner saw that the workers of the liquor vend were also attacking those people and in the melee the people who had started the fight ran away. Later on, the petitioner came to know that most of the boys of Village Chhatt, who were present at the liquor vend were named by the complainant in the FIR and, therefore, the name of the petitioner was also mentioned. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is one of the assailants, who had gone to the liquor vend armed with Dandas and iron rods and caused injuries to the complainant. The fact that he was present there per chance is not a circumstance which is to be gone into at this stage. The same would more appropriately be considered and gone into by the investigating authorities on the basis of investigation that are to be conducted or by the Court as the case may be. There is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner if his presence was there was per chance. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. February 2, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*