CRM-M 15602 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM 41446 of 2009 and CRM-M 15602 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on Oct 29,2009. Jaswant Singh and another -- Petitioners vs. The State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Mandeep Kaushik,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Rawat,AAG,Punjab. Mr.Gobind Rai,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) CRM 41446 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M 15602 of 2009 This is a petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.53 dated 04.5.2009, registered under Sections 341,323,34 IPC (in which Sections 325 and 308 of IPC were added later on) at Police Station, Sadar Faridkot. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have caused injuries with sharp edged weapon to the complainant. Jaswant Singh (petitioner No,1) opened attack by raising lalkara and caused 14 CRM-M 15602 of 2009 (O&M) 2 injuries and the doctor had opined that the injuries could be collectively dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are on bail in terms of the order passed by this Court on 02.6.2009. He has further submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners are involved inasmuch as eight cases which are reproduced below:- (1) FIR No.23 dated 09.5.2000, P.S. Sadiq, U/s 302 IPC, U/S 25,27,54,59 Arms Act. (2) FIR No.51 dated 11.10.2000, U/s 420,419, 465,471, 462 IPC,P.S.Sadiq; (3) FIR No. 46 U/s 420, 465,467,471,120-B IPC,P.S. City Kotkapura (4) FIR No.164 dated 14.08.2003, U/s 411,471, 379,468, 120-B IPC,P.S City Kotkapura.(5) FIR No.46 dated 21.03.2004, U/s 379,411 IPC,P.S. Matlonda, District Panipat;(6) Challan U/S 109 dated 21.5. 2009, P.S.City Faridkot. (7) FIR No.53 dated 04.05.2009, U/s 323,341,308 IPC,P.S.Sadar Faridkot (Note this FIR is related to present bail application) and (8) FIR No.33 dated 15.7.1999, U/s 15 of Indian Medical Act, P.S. Sadiq. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been acquitted in FIR No.23 , discharged in FIR No.51, and FIR No. 33 and in FIR No.164 ,they CRM-M 15602 of 2009 (O&M) 3 are not named. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands as the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an affidavit dated 17.8.2009 of Jaswant Singh (petitioner No.1) vide CRM 41445 of 2009 in which he has stated on oath that he is neither a witness nor accused in FIR No.46 dated 21.3.2004 registered under Sections 379, 411 IPC registered at Police Station, Matloda, District Panipat. Though, in the said case , he had applied for anticipatory bail before this Court vide CRM-M 47676 of 2005 and was granted bail on 12.12.2005. In the said FIR, vide order dated 07.6.2008, it was observed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, as under:- “One PW is present and examined. The accused already declared proclaimed offender. Now file be consigned to record room and it would be taken up as and when the accused is produced by the police or surrender himself before the Court. It be written with red ink on the file that it should not be destroyed as the accused is proclaimed offender. Intimation be sent to SHO of P.S. concerned” Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that petitioner No.2. Harmanjit Singh is also involved in another case registered vide FIR No. 256 dated 1.10.2009 under Sections 419, 465,467,471,120-B IPC,at Police Station, Faridkot. CRM-M 15602 of 2009 (O&M) 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail is meant in exceptional circumstance, whereas in the present case, not only petitioner No.1, in particular, has approached this Court by concealing facts from this Court but also petitioner No.2 is involved in a subsequent case registered against him, therefore, keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioners and their conduct, the present petition is hereby dismissed. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Oct 29,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge