Crl. Misc. No. M-19821 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19821 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.09.2009 Roop Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 392, 511, IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Taran Tarn vide FIR No. 35 dated 21.04.2009. The allegation in the FIR is that on 21.04.2009, when the complainant was sitting in his shop and counting money, three persons came there. The complainant recognized one of them namely Janga Singh. One of the accused person took out a pistol and pointed it towards the complainant. The complainant was asked to hand-over the valuables lying in the shop. The complainant raised hue and cry due to which adjoining shopkeepers gathered at the shop of the complainant. Janga Singh, fled away thereafter. However, one of the accused was apprehended at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is not being named in the FIR and is not involved in the occurrence in any manner. Crl. Misc. No. M-19821 of 2009 2 According to the counsel, the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case merely on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that name of the petitioner has figured in the investigation. According to him, petitioner was involved in the occurrence and the accused had gone into the shop of the complainant to commit the crime. Learned counsel (on instructions from S.I. S.S. Gill, who is present in court) has also submitted that petitioner is involved in four other cases. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is evident that name of the petitioner has figured in the investigation. The crime alleged to have been committed is serious in nature. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. The petition is thus dismissed being devoid of merit. 17.09.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE