CRM-M-20237-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20237-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:04.08.2011. Harjinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.28 dated 16.04.2011, under Section 397 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Kot Dharmu, District Moga. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was one amongst the many who had committed the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he belongs to another village and is not even remotely connected with the crime. He has further submitted that he has been added as an accused on the statement of one Gursewak son of Basant Singh, who had allegedly overheard four persons talking with each other that they have done good deed by teaching a lesson to Bahadar Singh for being a witness in a case against Ajaib Singh. It is further alleged that the other two persons, who have been roped in along with the petitioner, have been declared innocent during inquiry. In this regard, learned State Counsel states that the persons who CRM-M-20237-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ****** have been named by Gursewak Singh are Harjinder Singh @ Jinda, Harwinder Singh @ Tidda, Premjit Singh @ Kala and Kuldip Singh. It is further submitted that none of the aforesaid persons has been declared innocent and the averments made in para No.4 of the petition are not only false but also misleading. Learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time to explain as to who were the two persons who have been declared innocent during the inquiry and in pursuance thereof, an affidavit of the petitioner has been filed in which no convincing explanation has been given except that the averment in para No.4 of the petition has been made on the basis of averment made in the bail application filed before the learned Court below. It was also alleged that the averment made in para No.4 of the petition is a result of communication gap and is a bona fide mistake. In any case, the learned State Counsel has also filed an affidavit of Jatinder Singh SI/SHO, Police Station Kot Dharmu in which he has made a reference of various other cases registered against the persons who are involved in the present case and the petitioner is also found to be facing trial in a case registered vide FIR No.36 dated 10.05.2010, under sections 307, 324, 452, 323, 436, 427, 341 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. August 04, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE