Crl. Misc. No. M-34521 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34521 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.12.2010 Parveen Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case wherein petitioner has been summoned to face trial (under Section 319 Cr.P.C.) in Police Station Sadar, Abohar, Distt. Ferozepur, under Sections 302, 342, 148 and 149 IPC, vide FIR No.222 dated 21st October, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was exonerated by the investigating agency and later summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is thus, entitled to pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that the petitioner had earlier preferred a similar petition (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) before this court. The same was dismissed by a detailed order passed by a coordinate bench (Sham Sunder, J.). While dismissing the said petition, the court observed as Crl. Misc. No. M-34521 of 2010 2 under:- “5. “After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, during the course of investigation, the inquiry was conducted by the Police, and the petitioner was found to be innocent. Even, the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order Annexure P-2, stopped the proceedings against the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at, by the Investigating Agency, is not binding upon the Court, for coming to a particular decision. The Court is required to decide the matter, on the basis of independent material, placed on record. Since, after framing the charges, some evidence was recorded and the petitioner was named, as one of the alleged perpetrators of crime, as he allegedly, participated therein, by causing two injuries, with soti on the leg of the deceased, in my considered opinion, the concession of anticipatory bail is not warranted. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail, is an extra-ordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances. This case does not present any exceptional circumstance, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, heinous nature of the offences, and the attending circumstances, in which alleged offences were committed, no ground, whatsoever, is made out for the acceptance of Crl. Misc. No. M-4559 of 2010 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Crl. Misc. No. M- 4559 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and same is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point Crl. Misc. No. M-34521 of 2010 3 out any change of circumstance enabling him to file another petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In view of the detailed observations made in the earlier petition preferred by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no ground for entertaining the instant petition is made out. Even otherwise, FIR is under Section 302 IPC and the allegation is that the petitioner alongwith co-accused had assaulted the deceased. The petitioner was named in the very first version given by wife of deceased. The petitioner is stated to be member of an unlawful assembly which assaulted the deceased with various weapons, due to which he died. This apart, the earlier bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed on March 15, 2010. The petitioner has evaded the process of law for a fairly long time. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 10.12.2010 'rajpal'