Crl. Misc. No.M-12496 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-12496 of 2011. Date of decision: December 19, 2011. Amrik Singh and another ..... Petitioners versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, DAG., Punjab. * * M.M.S. BEDI, J. (Oral) Petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail by filing this second petition in a case which has been registered against them on the allegations that they have connived with their daughter Lovejit Kaur and arranged her marriage to the complainant Vikram Singh Rajpal. It is admitted fact that the petitioners are proclaimed offenders. They had earlier filed a petition for pre-arrest bail in the year 2005 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.2.2005 as the petitioners wanted to challenge the proceedings before the Illaqua Magistrate, declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. The second application for pre-arrest bail was entertained by this Court . . .1 Crl. Misc. No.M-12496 of 2011 on the request of the counsel submitting that the matter has been compromised by the complainant with Sadhu Singh. I have carefully gone through the order dated 26.5.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, wherein this fact has been noticed that Vikram Singh Rajpal complainant has compromised the matter with accused Sadhu Singh and not with the petitioners. Compounding had been permitted to the complainant to compromise the matter with Sadhu Singh. As per order dated 26.5.2006, the remaining accused have been shown as proclaimed offenders. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no changed circumstances warranting the entertainment of application for pre-arrest bail of proclaimed offenders whose application for pre-arrest bail stood withdrawn in the year 2005. No changed circumstances exist to entertain this petition. This petition is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court on 4.7.2011, the petitioners have appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and had been granted the concession of interim bail. Passing of an interim order does not ipso facto give a right to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail at final hearing. The circumstance that the petitioners had complied with the interim orders may constitute good ground for the petitioners to . . .2 Crl. Misc. No.M-12496 of 2011 seek the concession of regular bail. No ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the Illaqua Magistrate. In case the petitioners feel that they have got any other remedy to protect their liberty, it will be open to them to avail the said remedy. This order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners. (M.M.S. BEDI) December 19, 2011 JUDGE rka . . .3