IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No. M-29046 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.1.2010 Pardeep Kapoor ..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr.Vikram K. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon,Advocate for the complainant. *** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for anticipatory bail submitted that on the time and the date of the incident the petitioner was present at Radha Soami Dera at Beas and not at the place of occurrence. This fact can be verified from his mobile . It was further argued that the investigation is not being done properly. On 2.12.2009, the case was adjourned to enable the respondent- State to verify the same. Learned counsel for the State vehementally argued that they needed to know as to whether the petitioner had more than one mobile phone or not. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. I find custodial interrogation will be required to enable the petitioner to find out if he is using more than one mobile phone. Moreover, serious allegations have been levelled in the FIR. The petitioner is found to be a member of an unlawful assembly and part of the gang which was involved in violence and armed with deadly weapons. The petitioner was Crl. Misc.No. M-29046 of 2009 -2- duly named as one of the assailants in the statement of eye-witness Paramjit Singh alias Pamma. Grant of anticipatory bail in such a case will scuttle the investigation. In view of the allegations the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. No ground. Dismissed. January 8, 2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) poonam-II JUDGE