Crl. Misc. M-10805 of 2011 - 1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M-10805 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.8.2011 Sahoon and others ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. On April 29, 2011, this Court noticed the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and issued notice in the present petition qua petitioners No.2 and 3 only: “After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this petition qua petitioner No.1- Sahoon may be dismissed as withdrawn. He further submits that petitioner No.1 is willing to surrender and thereafter seek his release on regular bail.” On the next date when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners again sought time to seek instructions from petitioners No.2 and 3 regarding surrender of petitioner No.1 but despite statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners on 29.4.2011, petitioner No.1 had not surrendered. The case was adjourned to 18.7.2011 and thereafter for today. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 in the present case has not surrendered till date and in fact, he is out of control of petitioners No.2 and 3. The reason possible for his not surrendering before the Court can be that he is involved in some other case as well. He further submitted that petitioner No.2 was attacked by the complainant party on June 1, 2011 for which FIR No.220 was got registered Crl. Misc. M-10805 of 2011 - 2- on 7.6.2011. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that petitioner No.2 in the present case fired upon the complainant on 3.6.2011 for which FIR No.221 was registered on 7.6.2011. Considering the fact that petitioners No.1 and 3 are sons of petitioner No.2 and admittedly petitioner No.1 is involved in some other case and for that reason, he has not surrendered in the present case as well, there are two other FIRs registered by petitioner No.2 and the complainant against each other on June 7, 2011 regarding some fight or allegations of firing, in my opinion, even petitioners No.2 and 3 also do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 2.8.2011 Judge Meenu