Crl. Misc. No.M-19976 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19976 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 J.P. @ Jai Parkash …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Joginder Singh alleging that the complainant alongwith others was gambling in Dhani of Dada Ram Machra when Om Parkash, non-applicant alongwith 5/6 persons entered the room wearing khakhi clothes. They were armed with dandas. The complainant and his companions were beaten up and a sum of ` 58000/- alongwith mobile had been taken over by Om Parkash and other persons. The co-accused of Om Parkash had snatched money from the complainant and his companions. Crl. Misc. No.M-19976 of 2011 [2] Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name figured only on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of Parveen Kumar who was arrested on the spot. Counsel has further contended that the complainant had lost the game of gambling and in order to recover his money he has falsely implicated the petitioner and others. Heard. This is second petition for pre-arrest bail earlier having been dismissed as withdrawn after some arguments. Even if the arguments of counsel for the petitioner are believed that the petitioner’s name has been disclosed by his accomplice, it will be premature to form any opinion whether the disclosure statement of an accomplice would be inadmissible, if seen in context to the provisions of Section 133 and illustration of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Even on the principle of parity, the petitioner can be granted the concession of regular bail as has been granted to his co- accused. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in his second petition, as no new circumstances seem to have come into existence after the dismissal of first petition. Dismissed. This order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to surrender before the Illaqa Magistrate and seek the concession of regular bail. It is expected that the said application will be decided expeditiously. Crl. Misc. No.M-19976 of 2011 [3] July 21, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE