CRM-M 24829 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Oct 15,2009. Subhash -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Robin Dutt,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No.411 dated 23.9.2006, registered under Sections 364,302,201,376,34 IPC, at Police Station, City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Balbir Singh, who has alleged that 18 years ago,his sister Kalawati alias Usha (since deceased) got married with Anil Kumar son of Sumer Chand, Caste Dhiman and had two sons. Anil Kumar (brother-in-law of the complainant) is a drunkard and has no work. On 29.8.2006, he received a phone call from his brother-in-law Puran Singh, resident of Ghanouli that his sister Kalawati alias Usha is missing from her house since morning. He immediately came to his sister's house at Budiya Chungi alongwith his uncle Shree Chand, where Anil Kumar (his brother-in-law) CRM-M 24829 of 2009 2 and Subhash (petitioner) son of Jai Pal Dhiman resident of Sili Kalan were met. They could not give satisfactory answer about the whereabouts of his sister. In the meantime, Anil Kumar's brother Rajesh came with his mother from village Bukhri but they also did not tell anything about his sister. It is alleged that Subhash (petitioner) who is son of maternal uncle of Anil Kumar (brother-in-law of the complainant) lives at his sister's house who had alleged that whatever they had to do, they have done. On 01.9.2006 , a decomposed body of a lady was found by the police near Madalpur bridge which was identified as Kalawati alias Usha. The complainant has alleged that his sister has been killed by her-in-laws who have been supported by Subhash (petitioner). Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below, which has been dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, vide his order dated 31.8.2009 observing therein that “Anil Kumar (brother-in-law of the complainant) had made an extra judicial confession on 23.9.2006 before Rajinder Singh, Sarpanch and Balbir Singh involving the present petitioner”. In the present petition, notice of motion was issued, but no interim bail was granted by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per document Annexure P-1, dated 18.8.2006, the petitioner had met with an accident in which his right leg got fractured. He remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 08..8.2006 to 18.8.2006 and after discharge, he was advised bed rest for two months from 18.8.2006 to 18.10.2006. It is, thus, submitted that as the alleged occurrence is of 29.8.2006, the petitioner's participation is simply ruled out. CRM-M 24829 of 2009 3 On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner might have been advised rest from18.8.2006 to 18.10.2006, but it does not mean that he was, in fact, bed ridden and could not have participated in the alleged offence, which took place on 29.8.2006. He further submitted that the deceased Kalawati alias Usha had suffered head injury which was ante mortem in nature and her vaginal swab indicated sexual intercourse with her. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a case of an exceptional circumstance wherein extra ordinary remedy of anticipatory bail should be resorted to in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Oct 15,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge