Crl. Misc. No. M- 33250 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 33250 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 04, 2011 Lalit Kumar Jhamb ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner *** Gurdev Singh, J. Heard. Petitioner-Lalit Kumar Jhamb, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 69 dated 11.6.2010 registered under Sections 323, 324, 336, 286, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, in Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala. He has contended therein that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police and the FIR was registered against him and his gunman and driver, Rakesh Kumar and Salman, respectively, on frivolous grounds. In fact, the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M- 33250 of 2011(O&M) -2- had entered into an agreement for the sale of land in his favour for ` 6,00,000/- and as per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on 1.8.2010. On 11.6.2010, the complainant called him to his house for the final deal and he had gone to his house with the balance sale consideration with his said gunman and driver. However, the complainant hatched a criminal conspiracy and served some intoxicant mixed in the cold drink and thereafter, snatched the money and gave a blow with the axe on his head but he saved himself and the blow fell on his hands. The complainant also caused injuries to his gunman and driver. During the medical examination, injuries were found on their person and they have already lodged a cross case. As per the version given in the FIR, in which the factum of the agreement to sell has also been mentioned, the petitioner, accompanied by one Rakesh, who was armed with double barrel gun and driver, Salman, came to the house of the complainant in motor car bearing Registration No. HY-01-Y-2310 and started talking with him about the transaction of the sale of land. Thereafter, dispute arose between them and the abuses were exchanged. Thereafter, the petitioner and his companion started beating him and he gave a blow with his knife to him whereas his gunman fired from the gun. The complainant also got narrated in the FIR that the petitioner and the other accused criminally tress passed into his house with intention to kill him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the investigation, offences under Sections 452 and 420 IPC were dropped and that in fact, it was the complainant, who served some cold drink, containing the intoxicant, to the petitioner and thereafter, caused injuries to him and Crl. Misc. No. M- 33250 of 2011(O&M) -3- his companions. He has tried to refer to the report of the medical examination of the petitioner. It is not in the medical report that he was under the state of intoxication, which falsifies his story that some intoxicant was administered to him in the cold drink. There may be some cross case against the complainant, but the fact remains that the weapon of offence i.e. knife is still to be recovered from the petitioner. When such is the case, the custodial interrogation is required. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to him. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 04, 2011 PARAMJIT