JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Nirmal Singh and Jaswinder Singh by way of abovementioned petitions seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 08 dated 4.2.2012 at Police Station GRP Amritsar for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323 and 324 read with section 149 IPC, to which sections 325 and 326 IPC were added lateron. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. According to him, FIR was registered on 4.2.2012 and in the supplementary statement made by Avtar Singh on 2.3.2012 he has named Nirmal Singh and still did not name Jaswinder Singh. According to him, Avtar Singh has named the other person as Sukhwinder Singh @ Lakha son of Sardara Singh and the petitioner is not that person. According to him, the role assigned to the petitioners is also not specific in the said statements. He further submits that though the complainant suffered many injuries but the said injuries might have been suffered at the hands of other persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this is the case got registered by Avtar Singh on account of political rivalry. According to him, Avtar Singh is a man of sitting MLA and he has named Nirmal Singh and the other person after the declaration of the result of Punjab Assembly elections. He further submits that Avtar Singh is resident of same place and it is impossible if the petitioners would have participated in the occurrence, they would not have been identified by the complainant. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that Nirmal Singh has joined the investigation. According to her, Jaswinder Singh has not joined the investigation. She has submitted that these petitioners were having datar and iron rod and gave blows with the same to Avtar Singh, who suffered 17 injuries and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. 5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Jaswinder Singh could not join the investigation because he was in custody in a complaint case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that he would join the investigation as and when he is released in the said complaint case. 6. 5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Jaswinder Singh could not join the investigation because he was in custody in a complaint case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that he would join the investigation as and when he is released in the said complaint case. 6. Avtar Singh is the resident of Muradpura Ward No.2 and Nirmal Singh petitioner is also resident of the said place. It is not a case that these petitioners came with muffled faces. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and that one of the petitioners is not named even in the supplementary statement which is made about one month thereafter and that the role assigned to the petitioners is also not specific, I find the petitioners to be entitled to anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and orders dated 26.4.2012 and 2.5.2012 respectively granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners are made absolute. ---------0.B.S.0------------