Criminal Misc. No. M-19628 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19628 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.7.2011 Sajjan Kumar @ Sajjan Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the application is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. FIR has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 452, 186, 353 and 506 IPC, Police Station, Sohna, District Gurgaon on a complaint of Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sohna with the allegations that the petitioner, who had earlier been Chairman of Block Samiti, Sohna had stormed into the office of the complainant along with 10-12 persons and threatened the complainant and the staff that in case they entered the village to detect the power theft, they would be killed. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was delay in lodging the FIR. The petitioner, in fact, had not gone to the office of the Sub Divisional Officer and even if he had gone, it is a public office and the same will not amount to trespass. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The theft of energy was detected by the complainant in the village, to which the petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-19628 of 2011 [2] belongs and who had earlier been Chairman of the Block Samiti, certain meters were removed. It is in furtherance thereto that the petitioner along with certain persons had gone to the office of the complainant to threat them not to check theft of energy. The tendency of the people to take law into their own hands and use force to threaten public servants not to discharge their duties is increasing day by day. Roads are blocked, State and private properties are damaged just for the sake of it. This needs to be curbed. Many a times small time leaders are in the fore front to instigate the people to gain cheap popularity. At this stage, the allegations in the FIR are to be seen. The petitioner may have some defence, which will be matter of evidence. Considering the allegations against the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.7.2011 mk