IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4229 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2010. Amarjeet @Sonu. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Amarjeet @Sonu for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.536 dated 25.08.2009, registered under Sections 392/394 IPC at P.S. City Jind, District Jind. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been argued by learned counsel the petitioner that petitioner has not been named in the FIR and that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the statement of co-accused. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that petitioner has been absconding and that he was declared Crl.Misc.No.M-4229 of 2010 Proclaimed Offender by learned Magistrate and that challan against him as proclaimed offender has been filed. It is also contended that recovery of gold rings, locket and watch of complainant is still to be recovered from the petitioner, which cannot be effected without custodial interrogation. Hence, it is contended that he is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. It is also contended that petitioner is likely to abscond if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused rather custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. There is no merit in the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Amarjeet @Sonu and hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 10, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 2