IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 54 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.2.2011 Sandeep Singh Seepa @ Sheepa …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr KS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr VPS Sidhu, AAG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR (P1) in the case is registered on the statement of Chamkaur Singh. In the incident that occurred on 5.11.2009, the petitioner is said to be driving the vehicle in which the assailants had come and fired. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and he was not sent up for trial. The investigating authorities found that on the intervening night of 4/5.11.2009, the petitioner was at the house of his maternal grandfather. In fact, the petitioner had been residing with his maternal grandfather at village Kore Rahlan, Jagraon. After filing of charge report (Challan), during trial the statement (P3) of Chamkaur Sing (complainant) was recorded as PW1. Chamkaur Singh – complainant stated Cr Misc M-54 of 2011 2 that the petitioner was in the vehicle and he does not mention that he was driving the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements (P4) of Davinder Singh, (P5) of Iqbal Singh and (P6) of Jarnail Singh recorded under Section 161 CrPC wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner was armed with a Kappa. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a discrepancy in the statement (P3) of Chamkaur Singh as mentioned in the FIR and the statements (P4 to P6) of Davinder Singh, Iqbal Singh and Jarnail Singh respectively, who state that the petitioner was carrying a Kappa. In any case, it is the admitted position that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The custody of the petitioner is not required by the investigating authorities as he was found innocent. In consequence of the interim bail granted on 5.1.2011, it is the admitted position that the petitioner has put in appearance before the trial Court and has furnished his personal bond and surety. In the aforenoticed facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted on 5.1.2011 is made absolute. This petition stands disposed of. 23.2.2011. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge