Crl. Misc. No. M-27051 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-27051 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.10.2010 Jasbir Singh @ Rana ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Harpreet Singh, 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 307, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana, vide FIR No.172 dated 24th June, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. He also submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and in view of the same, there is no need to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Kulwant Kaur, who is present in court) submits that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. According to him, petitioner is the main accused in the case. He was armed with a sword and gave a blow on the neck of injured Suveg Singh. Crl. Misc. No. M-27051 of 2010 2 It appears that petitioner had earlier also preferred a pre- arrest bail petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-24511 of 2010) before this court. The same was, however, withdrawn with liberty to surrender before the investigating agency/ trial court. A direction was also given by this court to decide his regular bail application expeditiously. However, instead of surrendering before the investigating agency or the trial court, he has again preferred this petition without being able to point out any change of circumstance. The compromise stated to have been arrived between the parties was annexed with the earlier petition as well. In view of the fact that the petitioner is the main accused and a serious injury is attributed to him, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In fact, the petitioner has evaded the process of law for a fairly long time. No reason, whatsoever, has been explained as to why second anticipatory bail petition has been preferred when the earlier was withdrawn with liberty to surrender before the investigating agency/trial court. No change of circumstance has been pointed out either. The petition appears to be totally frivolous. The same is dismissed with Rs.10,000/- as costs to be remitted to the Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 01.10.2010 'rajpal'