Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case in which they have been summoned to face trial for offence under sections 302/307 IPC read with section 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, in exercise of powers under section 193 Cr.P.C. According to prosecution, on 28.9.2014 at about 10.00 A.M., Kuljit Singh alongwith certain other persons was going to house of one Neetu in the car. When they reached near the office of Gurpreet Singh alias Dainy, accused came there armed with various weapons. At that time, Gurpreet Singh exhorted that a lesson be taught to Neetu for not repaying the loan to him. He also fired from his .12 bore gun, pellet from which hit chest of Neetu. Thereafter, he again fired a shot at Baljit Singh which pierced his abdomen. He fired two more shots which hit Kuljit Singh and the complainant. Accused thereafter fled from the scene. Motive of the crime is stated to be a money dispute between the parties. Injured were taken to Civil Hospital. Neetu was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he expired on 30.9.2014. Trial court finding that petitioners had played active role, decided to summon them as additional accused.

2. It is evident that names of the petitioners figured in the FIR. However, investigating agency exonerated them while submitted its report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

3. Ms. Supriya Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for pre-arrest bail on the ground that petitioners have been summoned merely on the basis of material submitted by the investigating agency alongwith the final report. Their role was subject matter of investigation but they were found innocent.

4. Plea has been opposed by counsel representing respondents. During the course of hearing, Mr. Gautam Dutt was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court with regard to the issues involved. Mr. Dutt contended before the court that basic principles for grant of pre-arrest bail remain same as laid down in the case reported as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. The State of Punjab, 1980 AIR (SC) 1632. However, while considering plea of accused who have been summoned as additional accused by the court, it needs to be considered that they are not required for the purpose of investigation and their presence can be secured by issuance of process. In this context he referred to judgment reported as Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan, [2013(5) Law Herald (SC) 4286] : 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 948.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

6. In a recent case decided by the apex court reported as Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3121 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2411 (SC)] : 2014 (3) S.C.C. 306, it has been held that the court is fully empowered to summon additional accused in exercise of its power under section 193 Cr.P.C. It need not necessarily wait till the trial reaches the stage of section 319 Cr.P.C. This view has been approved by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 47 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 225 (SC)] : (2014) 3 SCC 92. Relevant paras thereof read as under:-

“53. It is thus aptly clear that until and unless the case reaches the stage of inquiry or trial by the court, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. In fact, this proposition does not seem to have been disturbed by the Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal (CB). The dispute therein was resolved visualising a situation wherein the court was concerned with procedural delay and was of the opinion that the Sessions Court should nto necessarily wait till the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reached to direct a person, not facing trial, to appear and face trial as an accused. We are in full agreement with the interpretation given by the Constitution Bench and Section 193 Cr.P.C. confers power of original jurisdiction upon the Sessions Court to add an accused once the case has been committed to it.

54. In our opinion, the stage of in