In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-22354 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:9.8.2010 Hardeep Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 452, 380, 356, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Kaushal Kumar who runs a sweet shop in the name of “Fun Sweet House”. It is alleged by the complainant that on 16.3.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. he and his employee Raju were present in the said shop. Two boys, namely, Tinku (petitioner No.2) and Deepa came to the shop. They had tea at the shop and thereafter when the money was demanded they started abusing and broke the chairs. Then Tinku attempted to give a knife blow but Raju the employee of the complainant snatched the knife from him and Tinku went outside the shop. The second boy i.e. Deepa remained in the shop. In the meantime, Tinku (petitioner No.2) along with 7-8 unknown persons came to the shop at 8.35 p.m. The boys were armed with kirpans and rods. Out of Cr. Misc. No.M-22354 of 2010 [2] them an unidentified person gave a rod blow on the back of the head of the complainant. They took Rs.4564/- from the cash box. In the meantime, Amanjot Kaur, Singer reached the shop who had a kirpan in her hand and the same unidentified person handed over the cash amount to Amanjot Kaur, Singer. In the meantime, the brother of the complainant Ram Kumar reached the shop and Deepa gave a kirpan blow on the head of his brother. The mobile phone (Fly) black colour and the SIM fell on the ground during the incident which the assailants picked up. The reasons for the dispute was that Bhola son of Gian Chand had a dispute with the complainant regarding the auction of the PRTC shop. The complainant had a doubt that all this had been done on the asking of Bhola. The complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bathinda where his statement was recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.1) has not been named as an accused in the FIR. As regards Kuldeep Singh alias Tinku (petitioner No.2) it is submitted that he is only alleged to have shown the knife. Besides, it is submitted that earlier when the application for pre-arrest bail was declined on 19.5.2010 the co- accused of the petitioners, namely, Jagdeep Singh alias Deepa had not been granted regular bail which has now been granted. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel, however, find no merit in the same. The earlier application filed by Hardeep Singh (Criminal Misc. No.M-14052 of 2010) was dismissed on 19.5.2010. Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.1), it was observed was part of 7-8 boys who had attacked the shop of the complainant. The medical report (Annexure-P.2) in the said petition showed Cr. Misc. No.M-22354 of 2010 [3] that two injuries had been caused to him. The said fact establishes that he was one of the persons present at the shop. The contention of the petitioner that Hardeep Singh (petitioner No.1) himself suffered injuries, it may be noticed that he had gone to the shop of the complainant and was part of the 7-8 boys who had been brought by Tinku (petitioner No.2) who had attacked the complainant. Therefore, the fact that he suffered injuries would rather establish his presence. As regards Kuldeep Singh alias Tinku (petitioner No.2) it may be noticed that he had specifically been named in the FIR. He had attempted to give knife blow to the complainant, however, Raju an employee of the complainant had snatched his knife. Thereafter, he went out of the shop and brought 7-8 unknown persons. The fact that Jagdeep Singh alias Deepa had been granted regular bail is no ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre- arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. August 9, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*