CRM No.M-32014 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-32014 of 2010 Date of Decision:01.11.2010 Naveen Kumar @ Jhony ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner-Naveen Kumar @ Jhony, has instituted the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Sachi @ Sonu, Ajay Pal, Mohani Gagat, Jindi @ Jatinder Singh, Deepak Sharma @ Deepi, Parshant Moonga @ Kali, Vijay Pal @ Chhota Lalla and Rajinder Kumar @ Lovely etc., vide FIR No.105 dated 28.08.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Division No.4 Ludhiana. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 28.08.2010, the police received a secret information that the above-named accused have formed a gang of looters and are extorting money, by threatening the people with dire consequences of elimination, engaged in various trades in the indicated localities. All the accused are the members of mafia gang and are engaged in boxes(Peti Mafia). They used to give threatening calls to the people to extract money. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of ruqa of Devinder Kumar, Inspector, SHO, Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, the present case was registered against the CRM No.M-32014 of 2010 2 accused in the manner stated here-in-above. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 4. Ex facie, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that he along with his other co-accused, are the members of Mafia gang and are engaged in looting and extracting money from the people by giving threatening calls of elimination to them. Keeping into focus the serious allegations, to me, the custodial interrogation of the accused is essential in this case, to unearth the scam of looting the people by the petitioner and his other co- accused and to elicit the truth in this respect. 6. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration nature and gravity of the accusation, direct allegations alleged against the petitioner and the totality of the CRM No.M-32014 of 2010 3 facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this context. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. Needless to say that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. November 01, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE