Crl. Misc. No. M14250 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14250 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.05.2010 Gurvinder Singh @ Sonu (Gurwinder Singh) son of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of village Dhandwal, Tehsil Phillaur, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the grant of anticipatory bail, has been filed by the accused-petitioner, in case FIR No. 80, dated 20.05.09, under Sections 148, 323, 324, and 326 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that, the petitioner, is physically disabled. He has further submitted that, the petitioner, was not present, at the spot, and, as such, the question of his participating, in the alleged commission of crime, did not at all arise. He has further submitted that, the petitioner, has been falsely Crl. Misc. No. M14250 of 2010 2 implicated. He has further submitted that, the co-accused of the petitioner, allegedly caused, as many as seven injuries, on the person of the injured, out of which, injuries No. 1 and 7, were declared grievous in nature. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. As per the allegations, on 15.05.09, at about 9.00 PM, Kuldeep Singh, complainant/injured, was attacked, by Harbabel Singh @ Bawan, resident of Samradi, armed with an iron gandasi (non-applicant), Sonu, resident of Dhadrarth, armed with kirpan, Sukhdeep Singh @ Matti, resident of Chhokra, armed with kirpan, alongwith five unknown persons, who were armed with kirpans, base-ball bats and datar. It is evident, from the discharge summary of the complainant /injured, that he suffered closed comminuted fracture lateral condyle of humerus with intra- articular extension left side; closed fracture both bone forearm (radius) mid-distal third region (ulna) mid-third region left side; Compound grade II segmental fracture fibula left side; soft tissue injury left thigh; cut tendon (FDP), cut injury median and ulnar nerve left hand; and extensor tendon injury left foot (tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum). He was also operated upon. Two injuries, were declared grievous in nature. No doubt, the name of the petitioner, is not specifically mentioned, in the FIR, but the complainant, in clear- cut terms stated, in his statement, on the basis whereof, the FIR, was Crl. Misc. No. M14250 of 2010 3 registered, that there were four-five more unidentified persons, who could be identified, by him, if they come before him. The petitioner, was found, to be one of the persons, who also allegedly caused injuries, on the person of the complainant/injured. Not only this, even the petitioner, has been absenting since the date of the FIR i.e. 20.05.09, and, proceedings under Section 82/83, have been initiated, against him. No doubt, the Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that, the petitioner, did not know about the registration of the FIR, against him, yet, it cannot be said to be correct, at this stage. He also placed reliance, on Dharmender and another Vs. State of Haryana, 2008(1), RCR (Criminal), 793, to content that, even a person, who was absent, could be granted anticipatory bail. In that case, the petitioners, were informed, that they had been dropped, and therefore, they were not served, but, ultimately declared proclaimed offenders. It was, under these circumstances, that anticipatory bail, was granted, to them. In the instant case, the petitioner, was not dropped. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner, is eminently required, with a view, to recover the weapon of offence; to elicit further information, with regard to the mode and manner, in which, the alleged offences, were committed; and, who were the unidentified persons, who allegedly participated, in the commission of crime. Anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances. This case does not present any exceptional circumstance, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations; heinous and Crl. Misc. No. M14250 of 2010 4 grave nature of the offences; and the attending circumstances, in which, the alleged offences, were committed, no ground, whatsoever, is made out for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No. M-14250 of 2010, and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 14250 of 2010, is dismissed. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 17.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE