Crl. Misc. No.M-19529 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19529 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Buta Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) It has been informed on the instructions of ASI Jasvir Singh by State counsel that petitioners No.1 to 7, on inquiry, have been found to be not involved in the crime. The petition qua petitioners No.1 to 7 has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. It is ordered that in case petitioners No.1 to 7 Crl. Misc. No.M-19529 of 2011 [2] are required to be arrested at any subsequent stage, they will be given 7 days’ notice in writing to enable them to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law. So far as petitioner No.8- Charanjit Singh is concerned, he has been found to have participated in the occurrence. Counsel for petitioner No.8 has argued that since petitioner No.8 has not been attributed any injury and the story of the prosecution, as put-forth by the complainant party has been found to be not true, petitioner NO.8 should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. It has also been argued that on account of duel version having cropped up, the participation of petitioner No.8 is debatable. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, State counsel and counsel for the complainant and after going through the record of the police, it transpires at this stage that statements of Bant Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Saudagar Singh recorded during the course of investigation indicate the participation of petitioner No.8. An enquiry was conducted and in enquiry, petitioner No.8 has been found to have participated in the occurrence with a double barrel gun. It will be inappropriate at this stage to distinguish the part played by Charanjit Singh from all his co-accused as he, with the aid of Section 149 IPC, would be equally liable for the act of his co-accused. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.8. However, the duel version regarding the participation of all the named accused may constitute a good ground for Crl. Misc. No.M-19529 of 2011 [3] grant of regular bail. Without prejudice to the rights of petitioner No.8 to seek regular bail, this petition for pre-arrest bail is dismissed. August 17, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE