Crl. Misc No. M-13251 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-13251 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.09.2009 Sukhdev Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 457/380 IPC at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala vide FIR No. 53 dated 12.03.2008. On 25.05.2009, this court had granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail to petitioner No. 1 subject to the condition that he would cooperate with the investigating agency. However, the prayer for anticipatory bail qua petitioner No. 2 was declined. The allegation in the FIR is that on intervening night of 7/8th March, 2008, house of the complainant was intruded by the accused after breaking the locks and a colour TV (BPL), DVD, one camera, two search lights, two watches, some cash and gold items were stolen. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely Crl. Misc No. M-13251 of 2009 2 implicated in this case in view of old enmity with the complainant. He submits that petitioners were found innocent in an enquiry held by the Superintendent of Police (HQ), Kapurthala. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that after ad-interim bail was granted by this court on 25.05.2009, petitioner No. 1 instead of cooperating with the investigating agency attacked the complainant and caused number of injuries to him, one of which was later declared dangerous to life and case under Sections 307/34 IPC was registered against him vide FIR No. 125 dated 21.06.2009 at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara. Thereafter, another FIR bearing No. 126 dated 21.06.2009 was registered against petitioner No. 1 under Sections 323/325/452/427 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner No. 1 has been arrested and is in custody. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that petitioner No. 1 assaulted the complainant after the protective order was granted by this court, I am of the considered view that he has dis-entitled himself to the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 23.09.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE