Crl. Misc. No. M-31312 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31312 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 26.10.2010 Vikram ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Vikram in case FIR No. 137 dated 30.5.2010 registered under Sections 392/34/120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sector-5, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, whereas, his name does not figure in the FIR. The petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Gaurav and Dhawan that the car which was taken away by them, was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner as the car, mobile phones, papers and car have already been recovered. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-31312 of 2010 (2) In this case, serious allegations are there against the petitioner and moreover one more case of similar nature of committing dacoity is also pending against the petitioner and this is the second FIR. The car snatched by the accused was recovered by the Rajasthan Police. Although the name of the petitioner is not there in the FIR but his role has been mentioned in the disclosure statement and on the basis of that very disclosure statement, recovery of mobile, other documents and car has been made. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 Cr.P.C. as well. In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437 Cr.P.C., the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Since the petitioner is involved in a serious offence, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. October 26, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No