Crl. Misc. -M No. 13289 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 13289 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.9.2011 Makhan Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The petitioner in the present case has been named in the FIR which was registered on the basis of secret information that the persons named in the FIR are carrying weapons and planning to commit robbery. Two of the persons named in the FIR i.e. Jodhbir Singh @ Jodha and Satnam Singh were arrested. Deadly weapons were recovered from them. The petitioner was not arrested from the spot. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not involved in the crime and he has been falsely implicated. The fact that he was not arrested from the spot, is sufficient to prove his innocence. He is an agriculturist. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that prior to the FIR in question, the petitioner was involved in two other cases out of which one is under Section 302 IPC in which the petitioner was acquitted after trial. The another is FIR No.42 dated 14.10.2010 registered at Police Station Khalchia, District Amritsar for similar offence. The factum of involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR came to notice after the arrest of the co-accused namely Jodhbir Singh who in his disclosure statement stated that he along with the petitioner and other accused had committed the offence which was reported in FIR No.42 dated 14.10.2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner in Crl. Misc. -M No. 13289 of 2011 -2- the FIR even if he is not arrested from the spot, he does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 2.9.2011 Judge Meenu