Cr.Misc. M 21404 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 21404 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Harpal Singh petitioner vs State of Punjab respondent Present:- Mr. AS barnala, Advocate. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl.A.G.Pb M.M.S.BEDI, J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Jagdev Singh alleging that he had been attacked by Buta Singh along with three unidentified persons. As per the FIR, first unidentified person had caused injury on the left tample, second unidentified person had caused injury on the back side of right arm and the third unidentified person had hit the complainant below the knee of the right leg. The petitioner was involved in the case on the basis of statement of co-accused Buta singh. Buta Singh had allegedly named the petitioner to be the only person accompanying him. The petitioner has been attributed an injury with a kirpan on the head of Jagdev Singh and another injury on right leg of Rachpal. The injury on the right leg has been declared to be grievous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the identity of the petitioner is debatable and that the statement of Buta Singh even if it is taken on its face value, reflects the falsehood in the FIR Cr.Misc. M 21404 of 2011 2 as the story of the complainant having been assaulted by four person stands falsified from the statement of Buta Singh, alleged to have been recorded by the prosecution agency. It has also been argued that the petitioner is also a driver along with Jagdev Singh on the same taxi stand and both of them know each other. There was no reason for Jagdev Singh to conceal the name of the petitioner while lodging the FIR. I have taken into consideration the contentions of counsel for the petitioner. It will be pre-mature at this stage to discard the alleged statement of co-accused Buta Singh that the petitioner had participated in the occurrence. The statement of an accomplice after corroborated by other circumstances can warrant conviction of the petitioner. Without expression of any opinion on merits at this stage, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioner has been attributed a grievous injury. The other argument regarding the disputed identity may constitute a good ground for grant of regular bail but no extra ordinary exceptional exit for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. Nothing mentioned in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek regular bail in case he surrenders before the Illaqa Magistrate or the investigating officer. August 11 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE