Crl. Misc. -M No. 24569 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 24569 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.8.2011 Mahaveer and another ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. B.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who were not named in the FIR registered on the complaint made by brother of the deceased. He was eye witness to the incident. He named only Devi Lal and Rameshwar as the accused. The petitioners have now been summoned to face trial on an application filed by one of the accused namely Rameshwar claiming that the petitioner was involved with him in the crime, for the purpose he referred to the statement made by Raju PW6 claiming that the petitioners were also accompanying Rameshwar and Devi Lal in crime, which was committed at 11.30 P.M. It was further stated by him that the petitioners had pushed them to some distance when the injuries were caused to deceased Jaipal by Rameshwar and Devi Lal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no material before the Court as the petitioners had not been named by the eye witness either during the course of investigation or in his evidence before the Court below. Merely because the petitioners have been named by one of the prosecution witnesses, who, in fact, was not the eye witness and further the only allegation against them being that they were present at the spot and pushed some persons and still further no injury having been attributed to them either to the deceased or any other person; the petitioners deserve the Crl. Misc. -M No. 24569 of 2011 -2- concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that when one of the prosecution witnesses has named the petitioners as accused and on the basis thereof, the learned Court below had summoned them on an application filed by one of the accused Rameshwar to face trial, it shows that there is sufficient material against the petitioners, therefore, they do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The fact is that the eye witness to the crime, who is brother of the deceased, had not named the petitioners. The only material before the Court is in the form of statement of Raju PW6 wherein the only allegations are that the petitioners were also present at the spot and pushed them, besides this nothing else has been pointed out. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody. They shall appear before the Court below within 10 days from today and submit their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 23.8.2011 Judge Meenu