CRM No.M-27542 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-11.10.2010 Rocky son of Misra ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Rocky son of Misra, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in this case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that on 12.8.2010 at about 1.30 p.m. petitioner-accused Rocky entered the house of complainant Anchal wife of Raju and gave two slaps on her face, while she was laying on her bed. Thereafter, he snatched the gold chain from her neck. He took out a knife and started inflicted injuries, which hit her left arm, chin and left shoulder. She turned towards the one side of the bed, even then the petitioner gave three knife blows on the back side of her thighs. Thereafter, he repeatedly gave two more knife blows, which hit her above right foot ankle. She raised alarm and he decamped from the place of occurrence. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner-accused committed the house tress-pass, after preparing for hurt and repeatedly caused injuries with the knife to the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner- accused, vide FIR No.432 dated CRM No.M-27542 of 2010 2 13.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 452, 324 and 356 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali, Distt.Bathinda. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and since no offence is made out against him, so, he is entitled to anticipatory bail in this case, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that on 13.8.2010 the complainant was present in her house. At about 1.30 p.m., the petitioner-accused came there and gave her two slaps on the face of the complainant and repeatedly caused injuries with the knife on various parts of her body. Meaning thereby, there are very serious and glaring allegations against the petitioner. As the knife is yet to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required at this stage. 8. It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible. 9. In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances. CRM No.M-27542 of 2010 3 10. 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 the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 11.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge