IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30378 of 2009 Date of decision : November 10, 2009 Manjinder Singh alias Meera ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Manjinder Singh alias Meera has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 294 dated 6.10.2009 under sections 341, 506, 34 and 382 (added later on) IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co-accused came in a jeep and obstructed the complainant while he was unloading luggage from his car in his house. Occupants of the jeep started abusing the complainant. When a neighbour came, occupants of the jeep fled away along with their jeep. However, again, they waylaid the complainant and his neighbour at midnight while they were on way to the house of Criminal Misc. No. M-30378 of 2009 -2- another person. The complainant was pulled out of his car and was extended death threat by the occupants of the jeep. When people gathered, the occupants of the jeep fled away leaving behind the jeep. From jeep, three swords and live cartridge were recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence under section 382 IPC which has been added later on has been made out from the averments in the FIR. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Puran Chand, stated that complainant by making supplementary statement stated that the accused persons had taken away Rs 1000/- and wallet of the complainant and the same are yet to be recovered. Keeping in view the fact that the jeep was left at the spot and live cartridge and three swords were recovered from the jeep and the fact that the complainant was attacked twice with interval of half an hour only and all other circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 10, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'