Crl. Misc. No.M-25094 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-25094 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 19, 2011 Surjit Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Narinder Singh Lucky, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case of assault which was registered at the instance of Tawinder Singh alleging that the petitioners had attacked him with dah held by both of them. The injuries inflicted on the person of complainant with Dahs were found to be grievous injuries. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have sought the concession of pre-arrest bail, inter-alia, on the ground that originally the Crl. Misc. No.M-25094 of 2011 [2] FIR was registered under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and subsequently on the basis of the report of the doctor regarding the injuries offence under Section 326 IPC was added. It has also been urged by counsel for the petitioners that once an accused is enlarged on bail for certain offences and if during investigation new section is added, in such circumstances Magistrate will be within its jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to furnish bonds for newly added section. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioners has relied on judgment of this Court in Sonu @ Rinku @ Lambu Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (2) RCR (Crl.) 392. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the said judgment and I am of the opinion that in the present case originally the FIR was registered under Sections 324, 323 IPC as the opinion of the Doctor had not been received by the investigating agency. The allegations against the petitioners is that they alongwith two others had attacked the complainant with sharp edged weapons. Dah blows attributed to the petitioners are on the head of the complainant. At the time of the registration of the FIR, the investigating agency did not have the opinion of the Doctor regarding the injuries as such the prosecution agency did not have any option but to register the FIR under Sections 324, 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. It was only after the opinion, having been received from the medical officer that offence under Section 326 IPC was added. It is not a case where the petitioners, taking into consideration the nature of allegations against them can seek the concession of pre-arrest bail, as a Crl. Misc. No.M-25094 of 2011 [3] matter of right because all the offences mentioned in the FIR originally were bailable. The petitioners were entitled to bail as a matter of right in offences under Section324, 323 IPC. It cannot be laid as general principle of law that in all the cases in which during the course of investigation on the basis of additional material when any offence is added, the accused would be entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail. Circumstances of each case are to be seen in every case for exercising the discretion whether in the added offence the accused can be granted the concession of bail or not. The facts and circumstances of Sonu’s case (supra) are not akin to the facts and circumstances of this case. No benefit can be derived by the petitioners from the judgment of Sonu’s case (supra). Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries attributed to the petitioners, no extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. This order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or Investigating officer. It is expected that in case the petitioners voluntarily surrender, their application will be considered by the Court of competent Court of jurisdiction expeditiously. August 19, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE