CRM-M-12475 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-12475 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.09.2011 Baj Singh and others . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.M.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1.m,k Mr.S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for respondent No.2 ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in complaint case No.141 dated 25.11.2010 filed under Sections 302, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 8.8.2010 about which FIR No.129 dated 9.8.2010 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur in which challan has been presented against co-accused Dhian Singh and Jagpal Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC etc. but the petitioners were placed in Column No.2 being found innocent. He further submits that in spite of filing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the present complaint has been filed against five persons including petitioners No.1 to 3 in which they have been summoned vide order dated 28.1.2011. The petitioners had then filed application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Court which has been dismissed on 16.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the trial is going on and custodial investigation is not required to be conducted, therefore, they may be released on pre-arrest bail whereas learned counsel for the respondents has CRM-M-12475 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - submitted that in this heinous offence of murder of Hardeep Singh all the petitioners had actively participated as petitioner No.1 had given two blows with reverse side of gandasi on the left forearm of deceased Hardeep Singh, petitioner No.2 gave three blows with dang on the left leg of the deceased and petitioner No.3 gave blow on the right flank of deceased along with pointed edge of kirpan. He has also submitted that at the time when the challan was presented, the petitioners had managed with their influence but as per the postmortem report 21 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased, who was an old man and participation in the crime of the petitioners with their respective weapons was there. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 JUDGE Vivek