Crl. Misc. No. M-37896 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37896 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.12.2010 Kamal Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Navjinder S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 67193 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-37896 of 2010 The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Kamal Singh in case RC 13(S) 2010-SCB-CBI-Chandigarh dated 3.10.2010 registered at CBI/ACB, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him. He has been implicated in this case only on the basis of statement made by co-accused-Jatinder. Learned counsel further contends that on 11.11.2010, the CBI has issued a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner and his brother for appearance before CBI on 17.11.2010 but as the petitioner was suffering from dengu fever, he could not appear on the date fixed. Brother of the petitioner, namely, Deepak appeared Crl. Misc. No. M-37896 of 2010 (O&M) (2) before the CBI on the date fixed and has been taken into custody by the CBI and now has been released on bail. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused, namely, Sonu & Rinku have also been granted regular bail and the petitioner is ready to join investigation. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on record. The allegations against the petitioner, which have come in the statement of co-accused-Jatinder, are that he had offered one impersonator in place of Sonu through the petitioner in the examination of Bus conductors in CTU held on 3.10.2010. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Mintoo had brought the impersonator, namely, Rinku from Bihar to appear in place of Sonu. It has also come in the statement of co-accused- Rinku that the petitioner met him in Patna and asked him that an examination is to be held in Chandigarh for recruitment of Bus conductors and a photograph of the boy was shown by the petitioner and he asked him to appear in the examination as some amount was settled. Some of the amount was paid and some was to be paid later on. In view of the allegations and conduct of the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The said power is not unguided or uncanalised 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 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. Since the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged Crl. Misc. No. M-37896 of 2010 (O&M) (3) occurrence, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be decided by the trial Court within a period of one week from the date of presentation of application, in accordance with law. December 23, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No