JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Satinder Singh alias Lali seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.55 dated 14.3.2009 at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 148, 302, 307, 323, 326 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was just named in the FIR and after due investigation, the police found him to be innocent. According to him, while submitting challan, the police placed the name of the petitioner in column No. 2 thereof. He has further submitted that thereafter on the application made under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C., the court has summoned the petitioner. According to him, prayer was made for summoning 10 persons as additional accused and out of them, the prayer has been allowed qua the petitioner only. He has submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. 3. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that a revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 30.11.2011 vide which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana had allowed the application moved under section 319 Cr. P.C. qua the petitioner and rejected the same qua the other nine persons. According to him, though, no specific role had been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR, yet the complainant in his statement recorded in the court has been specific about the role played by the petitioner. He has submitted that the case is quite serious against the petitioner and he may not be allowed bail. 4. The scene of occurrence is in village Bhadla Ucha through which a drain passes. The said drain was providing means of irrigation to the agriculturists. That drain turned dry during the last 2/3 years, but suddenly on 12.3.2009, the Irrigation Department released water in the said drain which caused apprehension of inundating the agricultural land of the complainant, the accused and others. The water of the said drain was flowing towards shamlat land on which side land of Buta Singh, the main accused, was also situated and after sometime, Buta Singh had dug an opening in the bank of that drain and diverted the water towards the fields of the complainant. The water of the said drain was flowing towards shamlat land on which side land of Buta Singh, the main accused, was also situated and after sometime, Buta Singh had dug an opening in the bank of that drain and diverted the water towards the fields of the complainant. When the complainant and others went to the spot, they were attacked by Buta Singh and others. 5. In the FIR, the petitioner Lali is shown to have been there at the spot. Neither it is mentioned in the FIR as to what was held by Lali at that time nor it has come therein that he caused any injury to any one on the side of the complainant. 6. It is a case where gun-shots have been fired and primarily the injuries suffered by the deceased and others are gun-shot injuries. Lali is, though shown to have been armed with a revolver by the complainant Rupinder Singh in his statement at the trial, yet the shot filed by him is also said to have not hit any one. The moot point at the trial would be as to whether this statement of Rupinder Singh, which is not there in the FIR, would be believable or not. The police found the petitioner to be innocent and so did not file challan against him. The court has summoned the petitioner as an accused under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. In these circumstances, the petitioner appears to be entitled to bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on or before July 9th, 2012 and on his appearance before him, he will be admitted to bail to his satisfaction. ---------0.B.S.0------------