Criminal Misc. No. M-25038 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25038 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Surender Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 501 dated 18.8.2009, registered under Sections 382, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station City, Sirsa. The allegations are that the petitioner had snatched Rs. 2,10,000/- from Sonu, when he was on way to Railway Station from his residence to board train to New Delhi. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Ramu alias Ram Parkash, who was accompanying him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as there is previous enmity of the petitioner's father with SI Om Parkash, who was threatening to grab the land owned by the father of the petitioner. Otherwise, the petitioner is not having any criminal background. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that involvement of the petitioner is established from the fact that at 11.27 P.M. on the previous night, the petitioner had called Sonu on his mobile and from that he came to know that he (Sonu) was going to Delhi by an early morning train leaving Sirsa at 3.00 A.M. and from that the petitioner came to know that Sonu will be carrying cash with him. Further, the petitioner called his brother at 2.37 A.M. on 18.8.2009, the date of incident. The alleged occurrence took place at 2.40 A.M. on 18.8.2009. Otherwise, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have made telephone calls at odd hours. It was further submitted that prior to the present incident, FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 398/401 IPC on Criminal Misc. No. M-25038 of 2009 [2] 17.2.2006. When the calls were made, the location of tower of the said mobile was near the place of incident. In response to the submissions of the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the telephone call made at 11.27 PM on 17.8.2009 was by the mother of the petitioner to Sonu, as she wanted certain clothes to be brought from Delhi and call in the mid-night was on account of the health of the mother of the petitioner having been deteriorated. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was also involved in a similar crime and there being two calls made at odd hours by the petitioner, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.10.2009 mk