Crl. Misc. No. M-25754 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-25754 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.9.2010 Sham Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 326 & 307 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, vide FIR No.47 dated 28th March, 2010. A complaint was lodged by Sukhdev Singh, alleging that he was assaulted by petitioner and co-accused on 20th March, 2010. The petitioner, who was armed with a Dattar, gave a blow on the head of complainant Sukhdev Singh. Due to injuries suffered by the complainant in the occurrence, the instant FIR was registered. The petitioner moved the court of Sessions Judge, Kapurthala seeking pre-arrest bail. However, same was dismissed on 19th May, 2010 with the observation that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for taking investigation to its logical end. The petitioner thereafter moved another application seeking pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed vide order, Annexure P-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire Crl. Misc. No. M-25754 of 2010 2 dispute is due to civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the complainant and in fact complainant was the aggressor in the instant case. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that the petitioner earlier moved this court by filing similar petition (Crl. Misc. No.16775) on behalf of petitioner Sham Singh and Ram Singh. The said petition was, however, withdrawn in respect of Sham Singh (petitioner herein) with liberty to seek regular bail before the trial court. The other petitioner, namely Ram Singh was, however, granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner has moved the instant petition with the same prayer without explaining any change of circumstance. It appears that the petitioner has evaded the process of law for a fairly long time. Even otherwise, a perusal of the FIR shows that allegations against the petitioner are serious as a blow with a Dattar is attributed to him on head of the complainant. I am, thus, of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. It is also inexplicable as to how the second petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable particularly when there is no change of circumstance. This petition is, thus, dismissed with Rs.5000/- as costs to be remitted to the Punjab Legal Service Authority, Chandigarh. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 08, 2010 'rajpal'