In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-34539 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:14.3.2011 Atul alias Atual and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. K.S. Nalwa, 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 342, 325, 323, 379, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Section 307 IPC which was added later. The application for bail filed by Gurpinder Singh alias Manni (petitioner No.3) has been dismissed in terms of order dated 29.11.2010. In terms of the said order the petitioners No.1 and 2 Atul alias Atual and Harmandeep Singh alias Mandeep were granted interim bail. In the incident that occurred on 9.6.2010, Shibbu (non-petitioner) had an iron rod and he is attributed two blows with the same on the right side of the head of the complainant Gursimran Singh. Atul (petitioner No.1) is attributed 2-3 blows on the left arm of the complainant with the baseball bat. Harmandeep Singh alias Mandeep (petitioner No.2) is attributed blows on both legs of the complainant with Cr. Misc. No.M-34539 of 2010 [2] `Daat'. On 13.1.2011, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners had been appearing before the Police authorities and joining the investigation but they were not co-operating. On the request of the counsel, an adjournment was granted for 14.2.2011. The case was then taken up on 21.2.2011 and it was stated by learned counsel for the State that the weapons of offence i.e. baseball bat from Atul alias Atual (petitioner No.1) and `Daat' from Harmandeep Singh alias Mandeep (petitioner No.2) are to be recovered. The petitioners were directed to join the investigation and the case was adjourned for today. Today, when the case was taken up, it is stated by learned counsel for the State that the baseball bat and `Daat' from petitioners No.1 and 2 have not been recovered. It is stated that petitioner No.1 has submitted that the baseball bat has been burnt by him and petitioner No.2 has stated that he has thrown the `Daat' in the canal. The field of investigation is the domain of the Police. In the circumstances, the investigating authorities are liable to be allowed to carry out investigations and get the weapons that were used at the time of the occurrence recovered. The petitioners despite being granted opportunities have not got the weapons recovered. Therefore, their custodial interrogation would be required to carry out effective investigations. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. March 14, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*