IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32855 of 2011 Date of decision : December 15, 2011 Gaggandeep @ Gaggu ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr.Deepak Mehta, Advocate for Mr. RK Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Gaggandeep @ Gaggu has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 206 dated 24.8.2011, under sections 399, 402 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Kotakpura, District Faridkot. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner along with other co-accused had assembled in Eucalyptus trees and they were planning to commit dacoity. On seeing the police, the petitioner succeeded in running away. On the preceding date of hearing, learned State counsel stated that another FIR No. 199 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner under section 307 IPC some days prior to the instant FIR. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in that case Criminal Misc. No. M-32855 of 2011 -2- also. However, State counsel, on instructions stated that proceedings for declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender have been initiated in the said other case. The petitioner has been named in the instant case although he succeeded in escaping. Shakti Kumar in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically named the petitioner. Petitioner is also involved in another case under section 307 IPC. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner, in my opinion, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 15, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'