In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-31755 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:9.11.2010 Kulbir Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel or the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him and others on 24.8.2010 for the offences under Sections 148, 323, 324, 307, 341, 506 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Harmeet Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that on 21.8.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. he was going on his motorcycle from the petrol pump, Jiwan Nagar to his house. He stopped at Bus Stand Jiwan Nagar to meet somebody. At that time, a black colour Bolero vehicle came in which Basant Singh, Randhir Singh and Pinda alias Bhupinder Singh all residents of Sant Nagar were standing at the back shutter portion (`Dalla') of the vehicle. One unknown person, whose face was muffled, whom the complainant could, however, identify if he came before him, was driving the Cr. Misc. No.M-31755 of 2010 [2] Bolero vehicle. Buta Singh was sitting by the side of the driver. The Bolero vehicle crossed the complainant near the Bus Stand Jiwan Nagar and went towards the road which goes to their Village Jiwan Nagar. After some time, the complainant started his motorcycle to proceed towards his Village Jiwan Nagar. As the complainant crossed half the road leading to Jiwan Nagar, then he saw the same Bolero vehicle coming towards him at a fast speed. On reaching near the complainant, the vehicle stopped and the driver door of the vehicle opened. The complainant applied brakes of his motorcycle and stopped it. Five persons got down from the vehicle and Buta Singh fired from his revolver or pistol towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. The complainant at once ducked down and the bullet passed over his head. Buta Singh raised a Lalkara and exhorted his companions to catch hold of the Chairman (complainant) and kill him. In the meantime, the complainant saw that Basant Singh was armed with Kappa in his hand, Randhir Singh was carrying an iron rod in his hand. Pinda alias Bhupinder was carrying a thick danda in his hand and the fifth unknown person was armed with a hockey stick. All the five attacked the complainant with their respective weapons and started beating him. The petitioner is stated to be the unidentified person and he was carrying a hockey stick in his hand and he gave a hockey blow on the posterior of the complainant. Buta Singh who had a revolver or a pistol pointed the same on the head of the complainant and tried to fire a shot but the pistol failed to fire, upon which he gave a blow with the butt of the pistol on the back of his left shoulder. Thereafter, all the persons started kicking the complainant and hurled fist blows. Buta Singh told everybody that the complainant be finished and they should leave Cr. Misc. No.M-31755 of 2010 [3] the spot. In the meantime, Jaswinder Singh came at the spot on his motorcycle and the five assailants fled from the spot along with their respective weapons. In the meantime, Varinder Singh also came at the spot in his car. Both of them i.e. Jaswinder Singh and Varinder Singh got the complainant admitted in Civil Hospital, Sirsa from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. His treatment was going on when his statement was recorded. The complainant had suffered a fracture on his right foot and right arm. The motive for the incident was that some days earlier the flood water from Ghaggar had flowed into their house and an application was given against Buta Singh regarding the flood. On account of the said reason, Buta Singh nursed a grudge on the pretext that application was given at the instance of the complainant as such all of them had attacked him with an intention to kill him. It was requested that action be taken. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not one of the persons who is named in the FIR; besides, he is, in any case, only attributed a role of giving a hockey stick blow on the posterior of the complainant, which, it is alleged, is not so serious an offence so as to deny him the concession of pre-arrest bail. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the petitioner is one of the main accused, inasmuch as, he stopped the motorcycle of the complainant. Besides, after getting down from the Bolero vehicle he went towards the complainant and exhorted others to finish him. It is submitted that the complainant was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and had remained admitted from 23.8.2010 to 23.9.2010 and suffered three multiple fractures. Cr. Misc. No.M-31755 of 2010 [4] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, he is stated to be the unidentified person, who was driving the Bolero vehicle. At the time of incident he was armed with a hockey stick and he hit the complainant on his posterior with it. Besides, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the supplementary statement of the complainant which was recorded on 11.10.2010. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is being falsely implicated, inasmuch as, the FIR has been registered after three days of the occurrence and the supplementary statement has been recorded after 1½ months of the occurrence. However, in my view, the same is to be gone into and considered at the time of final hearing. The custody of the petitioner is required for the purposes of investigation so as to establish and ascertain his involvement in the case. Besides, the case relates to an assault on a person who was coming to his village on a motorcycle by five persons who were travelling in a Bolero vehicle. The complainant remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh for one month with multiple fractures. The pre-arrest bail of co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Buta Singh has been declined by this Court vide order dated 30.9.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-28957 of 2010. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. November 9, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*