Criminal Misc.-M No. 23378 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 23378 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 Azad Singh .. Petitioner v. U.T., Chandigarh .. Respondent `CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner in the present case is a liquor contractor. He is an accused in FIR No. 205 dated 12.7.2011, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh. The prayer is for grant of pre-arrest bail. The allegations in the FIR are that on account of a truck belonging to the petitioner carrying illicit liquor having been seized by the police on an information given by the reporter, the petitioner was having a grudge against him as he was instrumental in getting his truck carrying illicit liquor seized. On the fateful day, when the complainant was going with his wife to drop her in her office Tech.-Mahindra at I.T. Park, the petitioner along with six persons came in a Bolero jeep and struck the same with the motor cycle, as a result of which the complainant and his Criminal Misc.-M No. 23378 of 2011 [2] wife fell down. The petitioner took out a pistol and pointed the same on the head of the complainant stating that he got the truck of the petitioner carrying liquor seized, today he (complainant) will be killed. Three persons, namely, Manu, Bhandari and Chhotu were specifically named in the FIR, whereas two were unidentified. On account of the injuries inflicted on him, the complainant suffered fracture of lower 1/3rd of right fibula; fracture of lower 1/3rd of left fibula and fracture of frontal process of right maxilla besides other simple injuries. His wife also suffered simple injuries. When the wife of the complainant raised alarm, the assailants ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the injuries alleged in the FIR is such for which provisions of Section 307 IPC could be invoked. There was no sharp-edged weapon used. It is only alleged that the petitioner was carrying a pistol. However, the same was not used. The petitioner has a licensed pistol. Otherwise, the petitioner has not been attributed any injury. The main injury is attributed to one of the accused named in the FIR, i.e., Bhandari. He has already been arrested. Not only this, even two other co-accused named in the FIR and two undisclosed persons have also been arrested. The petitioner does not even own any Bolero vehicle, as stated in the FIR. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He will join investigation. In fact, the case is a result of business rivalry. The complainant is working in the hands of business rivals of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that the reason for attacking the complainant has been set up by him in the FIR, for which the petitioner had a grouse. He wanted to teach complainant a lesson so that he does not repeat the same in future. A truck carrying illicit liquor was seized and FIR No. 190 was registered against the petitioner on 4.7.2011. The present incident took place on 12.7.2011. The kind of injuries inflicted on the complainant by the assailants is evident of the fact that they were out to kill him. His both legs have been broken and there are serious injuries even on the face. The petitioner had used his pistol to terrorise the complainant. As to whether Criminal Misc.-M No. 23378 of 2011 [3] the same was licensed or not is yet to be found out. The accused, who were arrested, stated that whereabouts of the jeep are known to the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of offences, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Generally, in many of the cases registered for heinous crimes, even main accused is not arrested for days/months together. The case in hand is different. In the present case, though the case set up by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the injuries suffered by the complainant would fall under Section 325 IPC, which is bailable and no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, however, still the fact remains that two accused, who were not even named in the FIR were made to surrender on 12.7.2011 itself, the date of registration of FIR. Two other accused named in the FIR were arrested on 14.7.2011 and one person, who had been attributed main injuries, namely, Bhandari was arrested on 17.8.2011. It was after the rejection of pre- arrest bail filed by the petitioner by the court below. Another important fact is that none of the other accused or the persons, who were not even named in the FIR, filed any anticipatory bail application. It is apparently to project before the court that all the accused, to whom injuries have been attributed or not; named or not named in the FIR, have already surrendered or arrested so that the petitioner, who is the force behind and apparently had the score to settle with the complainant, gets the concession of pre-arrest bail. From the facts, which are apparent on record, the reason for attacking the complainant is the loss suffered by the petitioner on account of seizure of a truck carrying illicit liquor belonging to him. The persons, who were made to surrender or were arrested, are his henchmen. Personal liberty of a person, who is an accused in the offence is one part, but feeling of safety and security of the persons in the society is more important. People cannot be allowed to settle scores in street like this. Criminal Misc.-M No. 23378 of 2011 [4] Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.8.2011 mk