In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-30103 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:12.10.2010 Manjit Singh alias Dulla .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC; besides Section 326 IPC which was added later. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Chandan Shergill. In the incident that occurred on 2.1.2010, the petitioner is alleged to be armed with a Datar and he gave a Datar blow which was stopped by the complainant by holding his arm. The co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Chamkaur Singh was armed with hockey, Mandeep Singh alias Monu was armed with a spade handle, Daler Singh son of Malkiat Singh was armed with handle of spade, Sandeep was armed with a baseball bat and they had attacked the complainant Chandan Shergill. Chamkaur Singh gave a Datar blow which hit on the middle of the head of the complainant. Then Bunty and Mandeep held the complainant. Then Cr. Misc. No.M-30103 of 2010 [2] Chamkaur Singh gave a Datar blow on his head. Thereafter, Daler and Sandeep attacked with the handle of spade which hit on the left leg and left arm. Thereafter, Manjit Singh (petitioner) kicked the complainant and gave fist blows. During this incident, the said persons also caused injuries to Gurwinder Singh. The complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar by his mother who had brought him after arranging a vehicle. The reason for the dispute was that earlier they had petty quarrels several times with each other. He suffered injuries because he saved his uncle's son from that quarrels and talks in that regard for compromise were going on but they did not materialize. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially granted interim bail vide order dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Juge, Jalandhar. Thereafter, ASI Pritam Singh made a statement (Annexure-P.3) on 16.9.2010 to the effect that the petitioner had joined the investigation after formal arrest and as per interim bail he was released after filing bail in Police Station. The weapon i.e. Datar had also been recovered. He was no more required for Police investigation. It is submitted that despite the said statement, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order 16.9.2010 (Annexure-P.4) has declined anticipatory bail leaving the petitioner to apply for regular bail along with an application for interim bail. If such an application was filed, it was directed that the trial Court shall decide the application for interim bail pending disposal of the bail application on the same day. According to the learned counsel, the Magistrates do not give interim bail pending decision on final bail. Cr. Misc. No.M-30103 of 2010 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal, 2010 (2) RCR (Cr.) 830, has held that power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of regular bail application. It was observed by the Supreme Court that it had been made clear on number of occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of regular bail application. This power, it was held, is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A person, it was held, should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent. Accordingly, the case was disposed of with direction that if the petitioner files a regular bail before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for interim bail along with the same which application shall be decided on the same day on which it was filed pending disposal of regular bail application. The Supreme Court in Sukhwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 487:(2009 (4) RCR (Cr.) 868) held as follows:- “A Court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of every person. When a person applies for regular bail then the Court concerned ordinarily lists that application after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the meantime Cr. Misc. No.M-30103 of 2010 [4] the applicant has to go to jail. Even if the applicant is released on bail thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in society. The reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.” In view of the above enunciation of law, it cannot be said that there is no practice before the Courts to grant interim bail pending disposal of the regular bail applications. The Courts can decide interim bail application and grant interim bail pending disposal of final bail application. In the facts and circumstances, in case the petitioner applies for grant of regular bail within three days of receipt of copy of this order, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate in the first instance and thereafter his application for regular bail shall be considered in accordance with law. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. October 12, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*