Crl.M.No.M 4414 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M 4414 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 12, 2010 Raj Kumar @ Raju .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Neeraj Kumar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G. Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.426, dated 22.10.2009, under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and rather co-accused Satya, who allegedly had taken main accused Ravinder @ Dhilla to the house of petitioner for collecting pistol has been found innocent by the police. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that as per the allegations the pistol with which murder was committed was provided by the petitioner-accused. It has further been contended that petitioner-accused is absconding and that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for declaring him proclaimed offender have already been initiated. Hence, it is contended that he is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. As per the allegations, murder had taken place on 21.10.2009 Crl.M.No.M 4414 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and after arrest of co-accused, present applicant-accused was named during investigation and pistol was provided by him to the main accused, which was later on used for committing murder. Case is still at the stage of investigation and petitioner is absconding. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner-accused- Raj Kumar @ Raju is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge