Judgment:
CRM-M-23857 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-23857 of 2013 Date of Decision :
26. 08.2013 Sakatter Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-25743 of 2013 Date of Decision :
26. 08.2013 Bakshish Singh @ Tona ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH Present: Mr. B.S. Sameer, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab. R.P. Nagrath, J.This order will dispose of CRM-M-23857 of 2013 and CRM-M-25743 of 2013 as these arise out of the same FIR.
2. In CRM-M-23857 of 2013, it was stated that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. Learned State counsel contends that FIR (Annexure P-1) would show that both the petitioners are named. In the copy of FIR name of one person is mentioned as Namantar Singh but in fact it is Nachhater Singh petitioner No.2.
3. The application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 14.06.2011 and the petitioners approached this Court only about a month ago. Learned State counsel submits that Jitender Kumar 2013.08.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23857 of 2013 -2- efforts were made to arrest the petitioners but they have been evading. This is an occurrence in which many culprits caused damage to the liquor shop and also looted articles/stock lying in the shop. It is stated that 20 bottles of Beer, 10 bottles of Orange Wine, 10 bottles of Veenar wine, 5 quarters of rum Hameera were stolen and also damaged the shop.
4. It is contended that the petitioners who are engaged in the illicit dealing of the liquor have indulged in such kind of vandalism.
5. In CRM-M-25743 of 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an affidavit of the complainant (Annexure P-2) to the effect that on an information given by public the petitioner was named in the FIR but respondent No.2 has come to knot that he was not among the miscreants. The petitioner otherwise is named in the FIR as one of the culprits.
6. Learned State counsel also contends that FIR was registered more than 2 years ago but the petitioners could not be arrested despite several attempts. It is also contended that out of 12 accused named in the FIR, 8 were arrested.
7. In view of the discussion made above and if the contention of petitioner in CRM-M-25743 of 2013 is correct that matter can still be determined by the investigating agency but in view of the serious allegations in which the offences were committed, no ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. August 26, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE Jitender Kumar 2013.08.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh