Crl. Misc. No. M-35832 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35832 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2010 Shiv Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J (Oral) Petitioner Shiv Kumar son of Om Prakash, has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co- accused, vide FIR No. 171 dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 380, 457 and 411 of IPC, by the police of Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C, 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 06.09.2010 at about 8.00 P.M, complainant Arun Sharda went to DMC Hospital along with his wife for treatment of their son after locking the door of their house. At about 10.00 P.M when they returned back, then they noticed the lock of the gate of their house was broken. They entered into their house where T.V, mixture grinder, two gold chains cash of `2500/-, utensils, ATM Card, Nokia Mobile and `1,000/- were found missing. According to the prosecution that petitioner along with his other co- accused has committed the theft of the indicated articles from the house of the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of the complaint of complainant Arun Sharda, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through Crl. Misc. No. M-35832 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 4. However, the main argument of learned counsel, that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and since there is no material against him, so, he is entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well . 5. As is evident from the record, that during the course of the investigation of the case, Suraj Pal, co-accused of the petitioner, was arrested and T.V was recovered from him. During further interrogation, he disclosed that he (Suraj Pal) and petitioner are habitual offenders of committing theft. They have committed theft in the house of the complainant on the fateful day. Meaning thereby, there is a direct involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question. Since, the stolen articles are yet to be recovered, so, to me the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, in this case in order to elicit the truth and to complete the chain of the prosecution evidence. 6. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 7. So, taking into consideration nature and gravity of the accusation and Crl. Misc. No. M-35832 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this regard. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the cases. 9. Needles to state that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) December 07, 2010 JUDGE G.Arora