Crl. Misc. No. M-8291 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-8291 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.3.2011 Avtar Singh Sahota ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Mehna, District Moga, vide FIR No.15 dated 18th February, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner was not at the place of occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in the case without any basis. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that in fact 40-50 people had disrupted the rail traffic on 18th February, 2011 and at the relevant time the petitioner was very much present at the place of occurrence. According to him, all the persons were armed with Kirpans etc. The petitioner is stated to have instigated others to disrupt rail traffic as well as assault the police officials present on the spot. He submits that 28 persons were arrested Crl. Misc. No. M-8291 of 2011 in the said occurrence. However, the petitioner fled from the spot. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that allegation against the petitioner is that on 18th February, 2011 at the railway crossing of village Mehna, railway traffic was disrupted by the petitioner alongwith 20/25 persons. His accomplices were armed with various weapons including Kirpans and also attacked the police officials. The petitioner is stated to be leading the mob which disrupted the railway traffic and assaulted the police officials. Other accused present on the spot were arrested. However, the petitioner could not be arrested and preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the court of Sessions which was dismissed on March 08, 2011. In view of the nature of allegations levelled, involvement of the petitioner as spelt out, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The present petition is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 28.3.2011 'rajpal'