CRM-M No.26001 of 2011(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.26001 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.09.2011 Rajneesh Vasudeva ...... Petitioner v. State of Punjab ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.110 dated 23.06.2011 registered under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506 and 427 IPC at P.S. City District Kapurthala. On 25.08.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel has argued that Section 452 IPC has been added only to make the offence non-bailable.” CRM-M No.26001 of 2011(O&M) ::2:: On the last date it was argued that not only the present complainant but the petitioner had misbehaved/abused/beaten up many other persons of the locality and it is only because of his fear they do not come forward. I had requested the learned Deputy Advocate General to ask the Investigating Officer to look into this aspect of the matter also. Today learned Deputy Advocate General on instructions from ASI Rajinder Singh has stated that in the inquiry made by the Investigating Officer these allegations have also been found to be correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has countered by arguing that some of the persons whose statements are now recorded are the persons against whom the petitioner had filed complaints in the year 2002. Be that as it may, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 26, 2011 JUDGE ashish