Crl. Misc. No.M-33037 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-33037 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 Anil Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.185 dated 20.08.2009 registered under Sections 381/411/34 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar. The FIR under Sections 381/411/34 IPC was registered against the present petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail. The said anticipatory bail was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The statement of ASI Bakshish Lal was recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 24.02.2010. The said statement reads as under :- “ The accused/applicants have joined the investigation and no more required for custodial interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from the accused/applicants. No offence has been Crl. Misc. No.M-33037 of 2010 2 enhanced.” Accordingly, in pursuance to the same, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by order of an even date, disposed of the application for anticipatory bail of the accused/petitioners by granting protection for seven days from the date of the order with liberty to the accused/petitioners to surrender before the trial Court and apply for regular bail during the said period. The petitioners, instead of complying with the said directions, filed second anticipatory bail application after almost a gap of eight months. The same was, accordingly, dismissed. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed before this Court justifying that he did not comply with the said direction as his liberty was curtailed. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused was, however, granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Heard. The petitioners have evaded their arrest for the last eight months. They have not surrendered before the trial Court till date. They have not filed their regular bail application in spite of protection of seven days granted by the trial Court. The said contention that the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail is found to be incorrect. In fact, the co-accused was granted interim protection to keep parity with the petitioners. The said order in the case of the co-accused reads thus :- “ This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.185 dated 20.08.2009 under Sections 381 and 411 of Indian Penal Code registered at PS Division No.8, Jalandhar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the similarly situated accused persons have been granted protection for a few days in order to enable them to surrender and apply for regular bail before the trial Court, whereas, no such protection has been granted to the Crl. Misc. No.M-33037 of 2010 3 present petitioner. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court on or before 16.04.2010 and files his application for regular bail, the same shall be considered and decided on merits. However, till 16.04.2010, the petitioner shall not be arrested.” Thus, no ground for extending the concession of anticipatory bail is made out in the facts of the present case. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 30.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet