Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 05.05.2010 Surinder Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Surinder Singh in case FIR No. 103 dated 12.3.2010 registered under Sections 332,353 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Kurukshetra. Notice of motion was issued on 9.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per allegations in the FIR, no case under Sections 332,353 and 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner and moreover the petitioner was beaten up by the complainant, as is clear from the MLR (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel further submits that there was no injury on the person of the complainant and he was not performing his official duties at the time of alleged occurrence. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner actually should have been the complainant as he was beaten up by the Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2010 (2) complaintant, while travelling in Haryana Roadways bus and was saved by other persons present there. The present FIR has been registered by the complainant just to save himself as he was aware of the fact that FIR would be registered against him. It is also the submission of learned counsel that Section 332 IPC is not made out against the petitioner, as at the time of alleged occurrence, the complainant was not performing his official duties, whereas, he was travelling in the bus. The complainant has not suffered any injury rather the petitioner has suffered the injuries. Mr. S.S. Mor, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana opposes the bail on the ground that on the basis of inquiry conducted by the complainant, services of the petitioner were terminated and for that reason he was having grudge in his mind. Learned counsel further submits that it is a clear cut case where the complainant being public servant was interrupted while discharging his official duties and was given beatings and threatened to kill. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR. As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant was going to attend his duties and while travelling in Haryana Roadways bus, he was not only threatened by the petitioner but was given beatings also. Since, the complainant was going to attend his duties and on the way the alleged occurrence took place, which amounts to obstruction in discharging his official duties and specific allegations regarding causing of injuries to the public servant are there, as the petitioner had motive to cause injury because his services were terminated on the basis of inquiry conducted by the complainant, no ground to grant anticipatory bail is made out to the petitioner. Moreover, as per law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case D.K. Ganesh Babu Vs. P.T. Manokaran & Ors. 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 161 (SC), anticipatory bail is to be granted only in exceptional Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2010 (3) cases where it appears that persons have been falsely implicated. It is settled principle of law that anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary remedy. Hon’ble the Apex Court in case Adri Dharam Dass Vs. State of West Bengal 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 32 has held that powers exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are some what extra ordinary in character and should be used only in exceptional cases where it appears to the Court that a person has falsely been implicated. So, the petitioner in order to seek the relief of anticipatory bail in this case is required to make out a special case in his favour or it appears to be false case or where the applicant is likely to be harassed unnecessarily due to some extraneous reasons. In Bal Chand Jain Vs. State of MP AIR 1977 SC 366, Hon’ble the Apex Court has laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:- “(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (ii) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 as well. (iii) In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.” So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above as well as the settled proposition of law, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition stands dismissed accordingly. May 05, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-10739 of 2010 (4) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No May 05, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No