Crl. Misc. No. M-34880 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34880 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 25, 2011 Nirmal Kaur and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Garg, Addl. A.G., Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) A petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-21981 of 2009 filed by petitioners Nirmal Kaur and Paramjit Singh, the mother-in-law and husband of deceased Rajwinder Kaur was dismissed as withdrawn on August 13, 2009. Another petition filed by Nirmal Kaur alongwith others bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-14460 of 2009 was heard. The petition qua Nirmal Kaur was Crl. Misc. No. M-34880 of 2010 [2] not pressed and it was dismissed as such on May 25, 2009. Nirmal Kaur, petitioner No.1 again filed a petition for pre-arrest bail. The said petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-14122 of 2010 was dismissed on merits on July 5, 2010. The present petition on behalf of Paramjit Singh, petitioner No.2 filed alongwith Nirmal Kaur was taken up for preliminary hearing on November 30, 2010 and it was dismissed on the said date qua petitioner No.2 Paramjit Singh. This petition has thus been argued on behalf of Nirmal Kaur, petitioner No.1, the mother-in-law, contending that there are changed circumstances warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail to Nirmal Kaur. It is submitted that the trial of husband of Nirmal Kaur i.e. Amar Singh, her sons Gurdhayan Singh and Jai Singh has already been concluded by Ms.Archana Puri, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on September 8, 2010 and that the complainant, the father of deceased has not supported the case of prosecution while appearing as PW1 and PW2 Sher Singh, resident of the locality where Rajwinder Kaur had died also did not support the case of the prosecution, as a result of which the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused of the petitioner. A specific reference has been made to the statements made by the said PWs by counsel for the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the police file. It is apparent from the record that when the challan was presented against the co-accused of the petitioners, the proceedings for declaring them proclaimed offenders stood initiated. After the dismissal of the petition for pre-arrest bail of Nirmal Kaur she did not join investigation Crl. Misc. No. M-34880 of 2010 [3] and evaded the joining of proceedings compelling the prosecution agency to present challan against her husband and sons. The acquittal of her co- accused may constitute a good ground for her acquittal but in view of her evasive approach and her earlier petition for pre-arrest bail having been dismissed by this Court on merits, she is not entitled to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail despite the fact that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, she under compelled circumstances has joined investigation. But an accused who has been able to evade joining of investigation and arrest for a period of one and half year and hoodwink the process of law, cannot be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Petition for pre-arrest bail is dismissed. This order will, however, not prejudice the rights of petitioner- Nirmal Kaur to seek the concession of regular bail on merits by surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate or by surrendering before the investigating officer. January 25, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE