CRM No.M-29203 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-4.10.2010 Saurabh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Tarundeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Saurabh son of Ramesh Kumar, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and his other co- accused, vide FIR No.331 dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 323, 325 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station City Karnal, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 24.3.2010 at about 6.00 P.M., as soon as the complainant reached at Namaste Chowk, Karnal, in the meantime, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and came to the spot armed with deadly weapons, such like lathi, gandasi and rod and caused injuries to Pushpender Vasu, culminating into his death. There are direct allegations that the petitioner gave lathi blows on the leg of the deceased. Meaning thereby, specific role is attributed to the petitioner that he caused injuries with the lathi to the deceased. 3. In this respect, the court of Addl. Sessions Judge observed as under:- “I feel that the offence cannot be taken so lightly. Investigation is at initial stage. Recovery of weapon of offence also remains to be effected. CRM No.M-29203 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Moreover, I feel that prosecution should be given proper opportunity for investigation. In case the petitioner-accused is allowed anticipatory bail, he may hamper the investigation and try to influence the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, the application for anticipatory bail of Sorabh stands rejected.” 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge