JUDGMENT (1) THIS is a petition under Section 438, Cr. P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302, 341 read with Section 34, IPC and 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No. 100 dated 16th May, 2008. (2) THE FIR was lodged by one of the accused Rajwinder Singh alias Raju, who alleged that on 16th May, 2008 at about 6.30 p.m. he saw his father Karnail Singh returning to the village on a motor cycle. When he reached near a heap of potatoes in the fields of one Gurdial Singh, another motor cycle came from behind at a fast speed. THE persons riding the motor cycle encircled Karnail Singh and knocked him down. Rajwinder Singh rushed towards his father along with another person Gurdeep Singh. In the meantime, two gunshots were heard and his father (Karnail Singh) fell down saying "Hai Mar Gaya". THEreafter, both the assailants fled away on their motor cycle towards Moga. After FIR was lodged, investigation ensued. THE investigating agency, however, came to an entirely different conclusion. It arrived at a finding that deceased Karnail Singh was not being looked after well by his sons and their wives. He was, thus, contemplating remarriage. Rajwinder Singh and two of his brothers Amahdeep Singh and Sumandeep Singh (who were residing abroad), did not appreciate Karnail Singh's plan to marry again as it would lead to further division of property. All the three, thus, conspired to kill their father and hired contract killers Happy and Hira for this purpose. During investigation, accused Tejinder Singh alias Minku is stated to have suffered an extra-judicial confession regarding murder of Karnail Singh at the behest of his sons. Initially, accused Rajwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh alias Minku were arrested in the case, sent up for trial but were acquitted by the trial Court on 1st July, 2009 observing that the matter had not been taken to its logical end by the investigating agency as it had failed to investigate the case properly. After acquittal of Rajwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh, another accused Harbhajan Singh alias Happy was arrested and put on trial but was acquitted for the same reasons. Amandeep, another son of the deceased, who is residing in abroad, preferred a pre-arrest bail application before this Court, which was granted. After acquittal of Rajwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh, another accused Harbhajan Singh alias Happy was arrested and put on trial but was acquitted for the same reasons. Amandeep, another son of the deceased, who is residing in abroad, preferred a pre-arrest bail application before this Court, which was granted. He faced trial but was acquitted as most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. THE third son of the deceased, who is also living abroad, has preferred the instant petition seeking the same relief (pre-arrest bail). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that all co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. She has referred to order passed in the case of Amandeep Singh, brother of the present petitioner (Sumandeep Singh) and contends that the petitioner is entitled to same relief as granted to his brother. According to her, the petitioner is no longer required for further investigation and he is ready to face trial. Moreover, the petitioner has a strong case on merits as co-accused have already been acquitted. (3) MR. Shailesh Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has opposed the prayer. He submits that in view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. This apart, petitioner is a proclaimed offender in a murder case, thus, not entitled to a protective order from this Court. He also referred to adverse observations of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar while acquitting the co-accused Rajwinder Singh and Tejender Singh. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident deceased Karnail Singh was shot dead on 16th May, 2008 at about 6.30 p.m. by two unknown persons. It appears that during investigation, the investigating agency got some clues regarding the modus operandi of the commission of crime. Sub Inspector Bimal Kant, who appeared as P.W. 16 obtained some call details of cell phone recovered from Tejinder Singh, one of the accused. It also recorded statement of one Dinesh Kumar on 7th June, 2008. He supported the prosecution case, but during trial the said witness turned hostile. Sub Inspector Bimal Kant, who appeared as P.W. 16 obtained some call details of cell phone recovered from Tejinder Singh, one of the accused. It also recorded statement of one Dinesh Kumar on 7th June, 2008. He supported the prosecution case, but during trial the said witness turned hostile. The doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Karnail Singh on 17th May, 2008 at Civil Hospital, Nakodar, testified that deceased Karnail Singh had died due to neurrogenic and hemorrhagic shock on account of gun shot injury on vital organs of the body like lung, liver and ribs. As the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt, the trial Court acquitted accused Rajwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh. However, it observed as follows :- As an irritant, it is being observed in various cases that the case in hand being no exception that the investigating agency confuses clues collected during investigation with proved facts good enough to prove its case in a court of law. The investigating agency has not as yet geared itself in appropriate manner to meet pace of Information Technology and of Court Cyber Crimes. Details of calls made from or received by a particular mobile phone or more than one mobile phones may provide useful leads during investigations but when the matter comes up before a Court of Law, during a trial, it has to satisfy requirements of Indian Evidence Act. The investigating agency and of course the prosecution are required to satiate those requirements of law before claiming to have proved facts mentioned in call details provided to it by mobile phone service provider. It is travesty that despite having laid hands at such a useful piece of evidence the matter is not being taken to its logical end by the investigating agency." (5) LATER, accused Harbhajan Singh was arrested, but acquitted by the trial Court. Another accused, brother of the petitioner preferred pre-arrest bail application before this Court, which was granted. The said accused was also acquitted. The petitioner, who claims to have been abroad throughout, now seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail. A perusal of the title of the order. Annexure P-6, passed in the case of brother of the petitioner Amandeep Singh, shows that both of them are residing together in Germany. The said accused was also acquitted. The petitioner, who claims to have been abroad throughout, now seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail. A perusal of the title of the order. Annexure P-6, passed in the case of brother of the petitioner Amandeep Singh, shows that both of them are residing together in Germany. The petitioner has preferred instant bail petition after co-accused Rajwinder Singh, Tejinder Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Amandeep Singh have been acquitted by the trial Court in separate trials. The petitioner also seeks a protective order to enable him to surrender and face trial. It appears that accused have been surrendering before the investigating agency turn by turn and thereafter being acquitted due to lack of evidence. Needless to say that proper investigation and consequent prosecution have been scuttled in the instant case. Observation in this regard were also made by. the trial Court while acquitting the accused Rajwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh. In my considered view, reliance on the order passed by this Court (P-6) in the case of Amandeep Singh is misplaced as the same was granted on the basis of statement made by the State counsel before the Court that pursuant to interim order, petitioner (Amandeep Singh) had joined the investigation and was no longer required for interrogation. It is, thus, clear that no further investigation was ever conducted in the case despite the allegation that deceased had been murdered as a result of conspiracy hatched by all the accused, even those living abroad. The undue reliance placed by learned counsel upon acquittal of co-accused is also, in my considered view, misplaced as a judgment of acquittal in case of co-accused, tried separately, is wholly irrelevant in subsequent trial of accused who were not tried earlier. (See Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 885) : (AIR 2006 SC 433). (6) THIS apart, the petitioner is a proclaimed offender. The addresses given in the title of the petition preferred by him and his brother being the same, it is evident that he was aware of the criminal proceedings pending against him in India. The plea that he could not appear before the trial Court as service was never effected on him, is totally untenable. Both the petitioner and his brother Amandeep Singh are stated to be residents of Konsumring 12, 01896 Pulsnitz. Germany. The plea that he could not appear before the trial Court as service was never effected on him, is totally untenable. Both the petitioner and his brother Amandeep Singh are stated to be residents of Konsumring 12, 01896 Pulsnitz. Germany. In the petition preferred by brother of the petitioner Amandeep Singh (Annexure P-6), same address has been given. Amandeep Singh sought the concession of pre-arrest bail earlier and faced trial. However, petitioner remained absconding. It is, thus, evident that so far there have been three trials in the case, one pursuant to arrest of Rajwinder Singh and Tejinder Singh, second after arrest of Harbhajan Singh and third after surrender of Amandeep Singh. Fourth trial will ensue in the event of arrest of the petitioner. The FIR was registered on 16th May, 2008 when deceased Karnail Singh (father of the petitioner) was killed. The petitioner never appeared before the investigating agency which may have hampered the investigation. He was declared proclaimed offender by the Court on 12th February, 2009. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.