IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-13419 of 2009 Date of decision: May 15, 2009 Sikandar Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. KS Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 307/120-B IPC & Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act at police station Payal, District Ludhiana, vide FIR No. 60 dated 22.4.2009. In the FIR lodged with the police, the complainant alleged that on the intervening night of 21/22-4-2009 his domestic servant, Sonu opened the door of his room on the plea that it was raining outside. However, the complainant found that in fact there was no rain. Immediately thereafter, Sonu threatened him and fired a gun shot, which after piercing through the net door grazed the cheek of the complainant. During investigation it was found that the said domestic servant was acting at the behest of the petitioner. It was the petitioner, who had given a pistol to the said Sonu. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that since there was no direct evidence available against the petitioner and he has been arraigned as an accused merely on suspicion, as such he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The petitioner earlier applied for bail before the Sessions Court, Ludhiana. The Additional Sessions Judge while declining his prayer, took into consideration the fact that during investigation two independent witnesses had corroborated the version of the complainant. Certain telephonic records also pointed towards involvement of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. It may be important for the investigating agency to find out how the pistol in question was procured by Sonu. The petitioner, if armed with a protective order of this Court is unlikely to cooperate with the investigating agency. Under the circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Consequently the petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge May 15, 2009. 'ask'