IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32774 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.1.2010 Roop Lal and another ….. Petitioners Versus Balbir Singh and another ….. Respondents Present : Mrs. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 CrPC for grant of pre-arrest bail in a complaint case No. 79 dated 25.7.2009 titled Balbir Singh v. Roop Lal pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala for the offences under Sections 307, 323/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged by the complainant Balbir Singh (respondent No.1) that on 14.6.2009 at 2.00 p.m. he came from the house of Yadvinder Singh on his motorcycle to take a round of his fields. At that time from the bye-pass turning point of road, an ‘Innova’ vehicle started following him. They were five persons including the driver in the said vehicle. When the vehicle overtook the motorcycle of the complainant, he parked it near the bye-pass near a deserted brick kiln which was near the land of Yadvinder Singh. The ‘Innova’ vehicle which had overtaken the Crl. Misc. No. M-32774 of 2009 [2] complainant also stopped. The persons who came out of the vehicle were Roop Lal (petitioner No.1) and Satinder Kumar (petitioner No.2). Satinder Kumar was holding a baseball bat in his hand and he asked his father i.e. Roop Lal (petitioner No.1) as to what was he looking for and to shoot at the complainant. On this, Roop Lal (petitioner No.1) took out a pistol from his pocket and fired at the complainant with an intention to kill him. The pellets hit both the thighs of the complainant, out of which three pellets hit his left thigh and two pellets hit his right thigh. Satinder Kumar (petitioner No.2) hit the complainant on his back with the baseball bat that he was holding. The other three persons who appeared to be aged between 40 to 45 years it was stated could be identified if they came in front of the complainant. The assailants kicked the complainant, as a result of which he fell down and they left towards Jalandhar along with their respective weapons. The complainant shouted that he had been killed. In the meantime, Yadvinder Singh reached the spot with his vehicle and he got the complainant admitted in the Civil Hospital and the doctor there dressed his wounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complainant Balbir Singh was medically examined. As per his medical report, there were six injuries suffered by the complainant. Injury Nos.1 to 5 were kept for X-ray examination and after X-ray, they have been declared simple in nature. It is submitted that the petitioners have submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala that they have been falsely implicated. Learned State counsel on instructions has submitted that the investigation in the case was carried out and the petitioners were Crl. Misc. No. M-32774 of 2009 [3] found innocent on 19.6.2009. Besides, it is submitted that the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purposes of the investigation. It is further submitted that the Police has filed challan against Harmesh Singh on 5.12.2009 for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been found innocent in the police investigation and they have now been summoned in a complaint case in which their custody is not required for the purposes of investigation, it would be just and expedient that in the event of arrest, they are admitted to bail. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is disposed of and the petitioners are directed to put in appearance before the Court which has summoned them. However, in the event of their arrest, they shall be admitted to bail. They shall, however, abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 11, 2010 amit