Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-13290 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 30, 2011 Jagdeep Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner Jagdeep Singh seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the basis of statement of Palwinder Singh alleging that complainant and his brother Harinder Singh has been working as Cable operators. In 2007, the petitioner had outraged the modesty of sister of complainant on account of which there was a quarrel between the parties but with the intervention of respectables, compromise was effected. Later on, there were minor quarrels on account of the same reason. The sister of the Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2011 [2] complainant was married about 1½ years prior to the occurrence. On January 31, 2010 at about 7.30 p.m. when Harinder Singh, brother of the complainant was coming from the fields after answering the call of nature, a verbal altercation took place between the petitioner, his father Apar Singh on one side and Harinder Singh, brother of the complainant on other side. The complainant had also arrived at the spot. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his father had dragged Harinder Singh in their house and given him beatings. When Harinder Singh made an attempt to run away, petitioner Jagdeep Singh fired a shot with his licensed gun hitting the brother of the complainant in chest. When Harinder Singh was taken to hospital by the complainant and his brother Gurwinder Singh, he was declared dead. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.D.S. Pheruman has vehemently contended that after the arrest of the petitioner on February 6, 2010, an enquiry has been conducted by the police in which Apar Singh has been found innocent. During the course of this enquiry, a majornama and Panchayatnama was prepared, copies of which have been placed on record as annexures P-1 and P-2. An application was filed by Apar Singh on the basis of majornama and panchayatnama. He has argued that the contents of the majornama and panchayatnama are indicative of the fact that the deceased had trespassed in the house of the petitioner and petitioner and his wife Kulwinder Kaur advised him to leave the house but he caught-hold of Kulwinder Kaur and gave slaps to her. He had also started giving beatings with balla on which the petitioner had taken out his gun in self-defence and Crl. Misc. No.M-13290 of 2011 [3] fired in the air so that the deceased should leave the house. But instead of leaving the house, he assaulted petitioner Jagdeep Singh and scuffled with him. The shot was accidentally fired as a result of which Harinder Singh had died. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length and tried to appreciate the plea of self-defence on the basis of the documents produced. The majornama cannot at this stage be treated to be an evidence regarding the plea of self-defence of the petitioner. So far as panchayatnama is concerned, it appears that the plea of self-defence has been recorded in the panchayatnama with a prayer that arms license of Apar Singh be not cancelled. So far as annexure P-3 is concerned, it is an application filed by Apar Singh stating therein that Harinder Singh, deceased had trespassed in his house as a result of which they were compelled to fire shot as a result thereof he has died. The said documents have been got prepared with an objective to prevent the cancellation of arms license of Apar Singh. The contents cannot be taken as gospel truth or evidence justifying the self- defence of the petitioner which is yet to be established during the course of trial. No ground is made out for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. August 30, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE