On giving a careful thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, I do not find it to be a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. He is main accused in this case. It is on record that firstly, he fired two shots in the air. Even if, the version of the complainant is to be believed that two shots were fired to scare the complainant party, then, he fired five more shots towards the complainant, out of which one hit and other four could not hit him, as he was lying on the ground. In the police investigation, it was found that the cross-version was created by setting firewood lying on the spot on fire. It is again a matter to be seen as to whether Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka could rely on the report of SHO, Police Station Sadar Jalalabad by ignoring the reports of senior officers, who had already investigated the matter. Even the SHO, Police Station Jalalaband found version in FIR as correct. A person who had caused gun-shot injuries to the complainant, is not entitled to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Exercise of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in favour of a person, who has fired from his gun towards a person who was fleeing to save his life, will convey a wrong signal to society.
