Cr.Misc. M 5478 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 5478 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Daya Ram @ Daya Chand Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate. Mr. HS Beniwal, DAG, Hry Mr. AP Bhandari, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Petitioner Daya Ram seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of Sohan Singh alleging that Daya Ram, armed with pharsa along with a number of co-accused, constituting an unlawful assembly attacked Mohan Lal and others, as a result of which Mohan Lal died on account of injuries received by him on his head. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is specifically named in the FIR by the complainant Sohan Singh but during the course of investigation, he was found to be innocent by the investigating agency. Despite there being a report of petitioner being innocent, the complainant stuck to his original statement and made a statement in the court as PW1 in consonance with his original statement made to the police. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased had injuries on his head. In view of the prima facie strong evidence against the petitioner, he has been summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused had been summoned and the said co-accused have already been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. It has also Cr.Misc. M 5478 of 2010 2 been submitted that pursuant to the interim order, passed by this court, the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial court. Learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of specific injuries having been attributed to the petitioner on the person of the deceased and the said injuries prima facie being the cause of death, grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner will be improper. No doubt, a dual version has already cropped up in view of the investigation but at this stage, solely relying upon the inquiry conducted by the investigating agency, will tantamount to playing in the hands of the investigating agency, which in the peculiar circumstances of the case would not be proper. I have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the complainant is not trust worthy at this stage because in the original statement made by him, he has attributed a pharsa blow to the petitioner but while appearing in the court he has made a statement to the effect that the pharsa was used from the reverse side. The said contradiction, in my opinion, cannot be considered at this stage. It is the injury, attributed to the petitioner, which is prima facie resulted in the death of the deceased. The said contradiction may be available to the petitioner at an opportune time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the confessional statement of the three accused persons, which were recorded by the police. He further states that the three co-accused of the petitioner have made a statement to the effect that it was Banwari Lal, who had caused injuries on the head of the deceased Mohan Lal. The relevance of the statement of an accomplice has to be tested in the light of the Cr.Misc. M 5478 of 2010 3 provisions of Section 133 read with Section 114(b) of the Evidence Act. It will not be appropriate, at this stage, to express any opinion regarding the said confessional statement because the admissibility of the statement of an accomplice has to be corroborated before relying upon the same. It has been further submitted that four inquiries have been conducted by the investigating agency and polygraphic test of the witnesses, including that of the petitioner has been conducted. After carefully considering the said contention, I am of the opinion that the admissibility of the polygraphic test of the petitioner has to be considered in context to the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has already appeared before the trial court pursuant to the interim order, he should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I do not find any force in the said submission because appearance before a court pursuant to an interim direction will not ipso facto confer a right upon an accused to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised other arguments, which I feel irrelevant at this stage. Dismissed. Anything said in the order, will not, prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek regular bail. April 27 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE