CRM No. M-18328 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-18328 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Charanpreet Singh @ Mani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.L. Chandershekhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case, registered against the petitioner, under sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, vide FIR No.124 dated 7th June, 2009. The FIR was registered on the statement of one Bobby, who alleged that on 4.6.2009 at about 8.00 P.M., he was present in the house of Meena Kumari wife of his elder brother. At that time, the petitioner Charanpreet Singh alias Mani armed with a sword alongwith co-accused Amarjit Singh alias Kala who also had a sword and another accused Rishu alias Billa armed with a base ball forcibly entered into the house of Meena Kumari whereafter Amarjit Singh exhorted the accused to CRM No. M-18328 of 2009 2 catch hold of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner attacked the complainant with the sword and inflicted injury on the left side of his face. Rest of the injuries were caused by other accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no grievous injury is attributed to him. He, therefore, deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. It is evident that the petitioner had earlier approached this court. The petitioner and a co-accused had earlier filed a bail petition before this court vide Crl. Misc. No.M-17266 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner had at that time withdrawn the petition in respect of Charanpreet Singh, the present petitioner. His co-petitioner was, however, granted the benefit of interim bail. Learned counsel has not been able to show how he can maintain the present petition after having earlier withdrawn the prayer in respect of the petitioner when Crl. Misc. No. M-17266 of 2009 had come up for hearing. Even otherwise, I find that allegation against the petitioner is that he forcibly entered the house of Meena Kumar armed with a sword. He thereafter, inflicted an injury with the sword on left side of face of the complainant. In view of serious allegations levelled in the FIR, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for taking the CRM No. M-18328 of 2009 3 investigation to its logical end. I, therefore, find no ground to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 15, 2009 'rajpal'