CRM-M-20443-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20443-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:17.08.2011. Yadwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case registered vide FIR No.33 dated 21.03.2009, under Sections 452, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. The allegation against the petitioners are of beating Harpreet Singh. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur which was dismissed on 22.04.2009. Then they had filed CRM-M- 12480-2009 titled as `Yadwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another' in which the following order was passed by this Court on 17.08.2009: - “Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition qua petitioner No.1 to 4. The same is, therefore, dismissed qua the said petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, so far as petitioners No.5 to 8 (Sapinder Singh @ Lali, Ramandeep Singh, Dinpal and Jagdish Singh) are CRM-M-20443-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::: concerned, states that they have not participated in the crime and are not named in the subsequent FIR registered on 25.03.2009. He further submits that petitioners No.5 to 8 have joined the investigation. Learned State Counsel admits this fact of their joining the investigation on the basis of information received from ASI Gurmail Singh and also states that the petitioners No.5 to 8 are no more required for custodial interrogation. In view of the above, order dated 06.05.2009 passed by this Court is made absolute qua petitioners No.5 to 8 (Sapinder Singh @ Lali, Ramandeep Singh, Dinpal and Jagdish Singh). They shall, however, keep on joining the investigation as and when called and shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of.” It is further submitted that thereafter two enquiries (Annexures P-4 & P-5) were conducted and the petitioners were found to be innocent, therefore, the petitioners again applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur who had granted interim bail on 16.04.2011 pursuant to which the petitioners had appeared before the learned Trial Court on 04.05.2011 and furnished their bail bonds and surety bonds. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide its order dated 04.06.2011 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the bail application. Resultantly, the present bail application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the bail application was withdrawn on behalf of the petitioners as they were found to be involved in another FIR No.41 dated 25.03.2009 registered under Sections 307, 365, 341, 323, 324, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Ahmedgarh but since they have been found to be innocent in the present case, therefore, with the change of circumstances, the present bail application has been filed. CRM-M-20443-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] :::::: On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the other FIR No.41 dated 25.03.2009 is still pending and even the challan has been presented against the petitioners in the present case which means that they have not been found innocent by the Investigating Officer who has sent them for trial. Looking at the antecedents of the petitioners who are involved in a case registered under Section 307 IPC in FIR No.41 dated 25.03.2009 and that the challan has been presented against them in this case, I do find any change of circumstance in the present case. In view thereof, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 17, 2011. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE