CRM-M-19611 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-19611 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.08.2011 Gigi @ Ghghi and others . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.35 dated 26.4.2011 under Sections 323, 427, 452, 506, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station ‘C’ Division, Amritsar. The petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court on 6.7.2011 and were directed to join the investigation on 14.7.2011 at 10.00 A.M and the case was adjourned for 18.7.2011. Thereafter on 18.7.2011, learned counsel for the State had stated that except for petitioner No.2, two other petitioners have joined the investigation, therefore, order dated 06.07.2011 was made absolute qua petitioners No.1 and 3 but petitioner No.2 was again directed to join the investigation on 28.7.2011 at 10.00 A.M and the case was adjourned to 10.8.2011. Today, learned counsel for the State has submitted that petitioner No.2 has not joined the investigation and has further submitted that another case against the petitioner was registered vide FIR No.67 dated 23.6.2011 at Police Station ‘C’ Division, Amritsar under Sections 326, 452, 323, 324, 148 & 149 of the IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54 & 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, in which petitioner No.2 is not on bail. CRM-M-19611 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 has submitted that though his client has informed him in the morning that he has joined the investigation but he is not aware about the subsequent development namely FIR No.67 dated 23.6.2011. Be that as it may, since petitioner No.2 has not joined the investigation despite repeated orders have been passed by this Court and is also booked in another case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 10, 2011 JUDGE Vivek