CRM No.M 3272 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 3272 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2009. Parvez Kumar alias Pezi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.AR Takkar, Advocate for the petitioner *** Harbans Lal, J. This petition has been moved by Parvez Kumar @ Pezi petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.145 dated 1.10.2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 109, 436, 511, 307, 323, 324, 186, 114, 290 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of P.D.P.P. Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.9.2008 due to dispute of collection of donation for celebration of Balmiki Jayanti by the members of Balmiki Community, a dispute has taken place between the members of the Harijan Community and the Balmikies in Bilaspur. The present case has been registered on the statement of Vikram Singh, the member of Harijan community. It is alleged that the members of the Balmiki CRM No.M 3272 of 2009 (O&M) 2 community armed with lathies, Dandas and fire arm attacked the members of the Harijan community. Even a shot was fired, which hit Bittu son of Ram Kumar. Injuries were also caused to Rajiv Kumar with danda and sharp weapons. The accused also threw petrol bombs in order to put on fire the Harijan Basti. They also caused damage to the electric transformer and pelted stones on Ambedkar Bhawan and building of police station, Bilaspur. Thus, on the statement of complainant Vikram Singh this case has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 109, 436, 511, 307, 323, 324 of IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 & 4 of P.D.P.P. Act. Sections 186 and 290 of IPC were also added during investigation. During investigation, it was revealed that accused-petitioner Parvez Kumar @ Pezi has fired the shot and Bittu has suffered the fire arm injury. Thus, the accused/petitioner apprehends his arrest. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Axiomatically, this case has been registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and Damage to the Public Property Act. Needless to say, the offence punishable under Sections 436 and 307 of IPC are triable by the court of Sessions. Obviously, it surfaced during investigation that the petitioner has fired shot, hitting Bittu. The weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. Consequently, the custodial interrogation, which is qualitatively more elicitation oriented of the petitioner is required. The provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked, where the custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper investigation. The court considering the application under Section CRM No.M 3272 of 2009 (O&M) 3 438 of Cr.P.C. must strike a balance between rights of an accused and the duty of obligation conferred upon the investigating agency. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 438 ibid, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition merits dismissal. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. February 4, 2009 (Harbans Lal) gsv Judge