IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 31540 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.11.2010 Sher Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr. S.S.Toor, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Manoj Bajaj,Addl.A.G.Punjab. . **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners Sher Singh, Gurmeet Kaur, Surinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.366 dated 6.10.2010 under Section 382 IPC registered at Police Station Tripuri, Patiala. Notice of motion was issued on 27th October, 2010. Learned counsel fore the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of statement made by Khuswant Singh and there is no other material on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the recovery of ring has been effected from Khuswant Singh and not from the petitioners. Mr.Manoj Bajaj, learned Addl.A.G.Punjab on instructions from ASI Kewal Singh, submits that the petitioners have been implicated in the case not only on the basis of statement made by co- Crl.Misc. No. M- 31540 of 2010 [2] accused Khuswant Singh but the recovery of knife, motor cycle used in the alleged offence and the gold ring identified by the complainant out of many rings, has been effected from the petitioner. In this case, the recovery effected on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused can be relied. Since recovery of knife, gold ring and motor-cycle was effected on the basis of disclosure statement made by Khuswant Singh, it cannot be said that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. Although they were not named in the FIR but recovery has been effected on the basis of disclosure statement made by Khuswant Singh. The case was registered against some unknown persons on the basis of complaint made by Navneet Kaur. During investigation, one Khuswant Singh was arrested in the case on 11th October, 2010 who suffered disclosure statement and on the basis of that statement only, the recovery was made. Since the petitioners have committed a very serious offence and if they are granted anticipatory bail at this stage, then proper investigation would not be possible and as such custodial interrogation is required. Hon'ble the Apex Court in various judgments has held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extra-ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The said power is not unguided or unanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 Cr.P.C. as well. In Crl.Misc. No. M- 31540 of 2010 [2] addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437 Cr.P.C., the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. In view of the facts mentioned above and keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offence, no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE November 26, 2010. raghav