In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-16840 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:27.7.2010 Amar Pal and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 307 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Parmi who has alleged that on 10.12.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. he was returning to his house after irrigating his wheat crop field. When he reached near graveyard then Ajay and others including Chander Pal (petitioner No.4) came from the village side armed with guns. Ajay fired a gun shot on the left foot of the complainant which crossed through. Chander Pal, it is alleged, inflicted a blow with the butt of his gun on the left shoulder of the complainant. Others also caused injuries. However, no specific role is attributed to petitioners No.1 to 3. Amar Pal (petitioner No.1), Umed Cr. Misc. No.M-16840 of 2010 [2] (petitioner No.2) and Manjeet (petitioner No.3) are amongst the 22 others who came at the place of the incident carrying Lathis, Dandas, Farsas, Ballams and Sariya. The co-accused of the petitioners have been granted regular bail. The present is a case of pre-arrest bail relating to an offence under Section 307 IPC. The petitioners are alleged to have created an unruly scene in the village along with others. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the weapons of offence are still to be recovered and despite grant of interim bail the recoveries have not been effected. Therefore, the custodial interrogation is necessary. The case indeed involves serious consequences. The learned Sessions Judge, Palwal in his order dated 28.5.2010 while declining pre- arrest bail to the petitioners observed that injuries on the person of Samay Pal were dangerous to life which were on non-vital part. Samay Pal has received gun shot injuries which though are not attributed to the petitioners. In any case, the petitioners' role is to be ascertained in the context of Section 149 IPC. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that the weapons are to be recovered, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the petitioners surrender before the Police within three days of the receipt of copy of this order their application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court within five days thereafter the Police remand, if any. July 27, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*