CRM No. M-15123 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15123 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.7.2009 Randhir Singh alias Dhira .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the complainant. .... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 188 dated 26.10.2008, under Sections 302/307/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Faridkot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a dispute of land between Malkit Singh and Bhagwant Singh, where, in a cross fight, one person died. Thirteen persons on the accused side are already in custody. Though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the FIR, however, in the enquiry held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was approved by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 12.2.2009, the petitioner was found to be innocent. Malkit Singh is father-in-law of the sister of the petitioner. The petitioner is living in a different village. He had no concern with the dispute between the parties. In a subsequent enquiry conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, without there being any reason or basis, the petitioner was falsely involved in the case. However, the fact remains that there is one enquiry conducted in which the petitioner was found to be innocent. The object of the complainant party to implicate the petitioner also in the case was to leave no one out to pursue the case. The petitioner was named in the FIR only being one of the relative of the accused party. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned in the FIR. He had fired three gun CRM No. M-15123 of 2009 [2] shots, the pellets of which had hit one of the persons on the complainant side on his turban (Pagri). Though in the initial enquiry, the petitioner was found to be innocent, however, on a representation by the complainant, fresh enquiry was conducted in which lot of discrepancies were found in the earlier enquiry and the plea raised by the petitioner that he was not present at the spot on account of the fact that he was present at other places was found to be not trust worthy. It was further submitted that one of the injured had stated in his statement before the police that the petitioner was present at the spot and his gun shot had hit the injured. It was also submitted that the case being of murder, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for anticipatory bail and his custodial interrogation is required. Challan against the accused, who were arrested, had already been presented. However, as the petitioner was not arrested, challan against him is yet to be presented. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned in the FIR and also in the statement of one of the injured, the allegations being serious where in a fight one person on the complainant side had expired because of gun shot injury and the petitioner was also carrying gun, though the gun shot allegedly fired by the petitioner did not hit the deceased, still considering the seriousness of the allegations, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.7.2009 mk