Crl.M.No.M-25055 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-25055 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 27, 2010 Daya Ram and another .....Petitioners v. Smt.Kanta and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in criminal complaint No.32 of 2009, dated 17.12.2009, titled as Smt.Kanta vs. Lila Ram etc., pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, for 13.10.2010, in which the petitioners have been summoned as accused for committing offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully. Petitioners have been specifically named in the complaint for causing murder of Ashok Kumar @ Kalu Ram. The complaint has been filed by the wife of the deceased. Earlier an FIR was lodged by her, however, as per her allegations, the case was not properly investigated by the police. She had made complaints to various authorities including National Human Rights Commission, Delhi, Women Commission, Delhi and to senior police officers, however, when the case was not properly investigated, she filed a criminal complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate. Report was called by the Illaqa Magistrate from the police, in which it was stated that the case was recommended for filing the untraced report.. Preliminary evidence of the complainant has been recorded by learned Magistrate. Injuries were found on the body of the deceased and as per medical opinion, deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him. Crl.M.No.M-25055 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Names of petitioners-accused have also been mentioned in the FIR. Learned Magistrate, after considering the preliminary evidence including the statement of eye-witness, PW8 found a prima facie case against the present petitioners-accused and they were summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, vide order dated 9.7.2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that evidence on the basis of which petitioners have been summoned by learned Magistrate is not sufficient and that there are some improvements and contradictions etc. to the version given by them before the police and some witnesses have been introduced later on. However, at this stage, this Court is not to minutely sift the evidence. The evidence was already considered by learned Magistrate and he came to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the present petitioners-accused. Summoning order has not been challenged by the petitioners so far. Hence, in view of these facts and taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Daya Ram and Chhote Lal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge