Crl. Misc. No.M-28143 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-28143 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 02-12-2009 Iqbal Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. Chanan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, A.A.G., Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral). This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail in terms thereof in the case registered vide FIR No.54, dated 16.8.2009 under Section 364, 307, 450, 148, 149 IPC & Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Joga, Distt. Mansa. According to the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner along with few persons allegedly tried to abduct the complainant and fired on him as well. Some of the persons were identified and named in the F.I.R., and one of the person was not identified and hence, not named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, this person was identified to be the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Crl. Misc. No.M-28143 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioner has no role to play in the commission of the offence, as he is not named in the F.I.R. He further contends that in the impugned order, the petitioner has been shown to be the person, who fired upon the complainant, whereas in the F.I.R., the role of firing has been specifically attributed to another person, who has been named therein. Opposing the bail application, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from A.S.I. Raghbir Singh, has pointed out that during the course of investigation, some of the persons were arrested. The name of the petitioner, even though not mentioned in the F.I.R., was established subsequently during the course of investigation and it was further established that he was in possession of the pistol and he also fired a shot at the complainant. Learned counsel thus contends that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is misconceived. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, has to be granted in cases, where there is apprehension of false implication. But, in the instant case, the petitioner has been prima facie found to be involved in the commission of offence, which fact has been established during the course of investigation. The offence and commission thereof points to a serious incident in which the complainant was sought to be abducted and an attempt made to eliminate him. Having regard the seriousness of the offence and also the fact that it appears to the Court that if the petitioner is released on Crl. Misc. No.M-28143 of 2009 (O&M) -3- bail in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., it is likely to prejudice the interest of investigation also. Hence, the present petition is devoid of any merit. Dismissed. 2nd December, 2009. (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE