Crl. Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011 Umar Mohd. …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-32264 of 2011 Mohd. Hussain …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011. Mr.A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-32264 of 2011. Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011 [2] M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-20264 of 2011 (filed by Umar Mohd. under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail) and Crl. Misc. No. M-32264 of 2011 (filed by Mohd. Hussain under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail) in case which was registered at the instance of Asgar alleging that pursuant to a dispute between Sahun and Zuber, who runs Halwai shop, on account of short weighment of Pakoras, the complainant intervened in which Zuber felt bad. Zuber alongwith his relatives Imran, Irfan, Tofique visited the house of Yakub and armed with lathies, dandas and sarias alongwith 20/25 persons, the petitioner Umar Mohd. allegedly gave a lathi blow on the person of Yakub whereas petitioner Mohd. Hussain was one of the members of unlawful assembly and allegedly participated in beating the Yakub who ultimately died. The application for regular bail filed by petitioner Umar Mohd. and pre-arrest bail of petitioner Mohd. Hussain has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that they have participated in the occurrence of causing lathi blows on the head of Yakub which proved fatal lateron. Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, learned counsel for petitioner Umar Mohd. has referred to the MLR of Yakub prepared on March 14, 2010 to contend that the injury attributed to Umar Mohd. never proved fatal and that one injury on the head is attributed specifically to co-accused Sohrab. It is Crl. Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011 [3] vehemently contended that while dismissing the application of petitioner wrong reasons have been adopted. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Umar Mohd and gone through the MLR and other statements recorded by the investigating agency. The MLR, no doubt, shows one injury but there is a specific note made by the Doctor attending to Yakub that there were some injuries which would be considered later on as patient was semi-conscious at the time of examination. Later on, it appears that the patient was referred to Safdarganj Hospital, New Delhi. So far as petitioner Umar Mohd is concerned, he is specifically named in the FIR. He has participated in the occurrence. As per the FIR, he gave injuries with lathi on the head of brother of the complainant. He being a member of unlawful assembly has taken part in the occurrence. As per the FIR, injuries were inflicted on the persons of Usman, Issa and Reshma etc. The chances of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out at this stage. Besides this, it will not be appropriate to enter into the niceties of the trial to appreciate the contradictions in the ocular and medical version lest it should prejudice the rights of the petitioner or the prosecution agency. No ground is made out to grant the concession of bail at this stage. The petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011 is dismissed. So far as petitioner Mohd. Hussain is concerned, no doubt, there is specific injury attributed to him on the head of Yakub as observed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, while dismissing the application Crl. Misc. No. M-20624 of 2011 [4] for pre-arrest bail on September 22, 2011 but petitioner Mohd. Hussain is specifically named in the FIR for having arrived on the spot and inflicted injuries on the person of Usman, Issa, Reshma and Sahun. The circumstances may warrant the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has not been attributed any injury on the person of deceased but it will be premature to say that being a member of unlawful assembly, having participated in the assault, he could be granted the concession of pre- arrest bail. I have considered the judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2011 SC 312 cited by counsel for the petitioner wherein anticipatory bail had been granted in a case of political rivalry by Apex Court by observing that liberty is an important virtue recognized for civilized existence. There is no controversy regarding the importance of right of personal liberty but a person who has been specifically named to have participated and constituted an unlawful assembly resulting in injuries on the person of prosecution witnesses and death of one person, no extra-ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. November 29 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE