IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8322 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.4.2010 Jagroop Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Tejender Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 1.5.2009 for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 392, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR (Annexure P2) has been registered on the statement of Sukhbir Singh son of Bakshish Singh. It is alleged that in the incident that occurred on 29.4.2009 the petitioner gave a ‘datar’ blow to the complainant which hit him on his left ankle. Besides, he also gave a ‘datar’ blow which the complainant tried to ward off by raising his right hand and the blow hit him (complainant) on his right hand. Injuries are also attributed to the petitioner on the outer portion of the right ankle of the complainant and another ‘datar’ blow on his left leg. As a result of the injuries caused by the petitioner, both legs and arm of the complainant have been amputated. Crl. Misc. No. M-8322 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the brother of the complainant namely Bhupinder Singh was involved in the murder of father of the petitioner. Case FIR No.110 dated 15.5.2007 was registered at Police Station Banga for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in this regard. Said Bhupinder Singh, brother of the complainant was convicted along with Manjit Singh for the murder of the petitioner’s father. Bhupinder Singh aforesaid was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar on 5.5.2009 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; besides, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, it is on account of the said reasons and grouse of the complainant that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. In response, learned State counsel and the complainant have submitted that the petitioner in fact is a proclaimed offender since 19.8.2009 and the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the co- accused of the petitioner namely Bachitter Singh and Hardev Singh has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-29055 of 2009. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender since 19.8.2009 and this Court vide order dated 19.11.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-29055 of 2009 dismissed the petition of Bachitter Singh and Hardev Singh for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Four specific injuries are attributed to the petitioner. Besides, both the legs and arms of the complainant have been amputated. Crl. Misc. No. M-8322 of 2010 [3] In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 22, 2010 amit