IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-19265 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.7.2010 Karamjeet Kaur alias Karmo ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Karamjeet Kaur alias Karmo for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.11 dated 17.2.2009 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas she was found innocent during investigation by two senior police officers in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police who conducted separate inquiries. Only on the basis of application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the petitioner was summoned to face trial. Mr.Vipin Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially challan was presented by the prosecution only against Amarjit Singh under Section 306 IPC and petitioner was put in column No.2. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and no custodial interrogation is required. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. Crl.Misc. No.M-19265 of 2010 [2] I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on record. It is clear from the categoric statement of father of the deceased that Karamjeet Kaur caught hold the arms of Jasbir Kaur and Amarjit Singh was putting some poisonous substance in her mouth. As per allegations in the FIR, the main accused Amarjit Singh on instigation of present petitioner, harassed and humiliated the deceased and telephonic message was also given on mobile by the daughter of the complainant and they were informed that she was being beaten, harassed and humiliated and was to be killed and immediately thereafter she was killed. Specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. Keeping in view the specific allegation and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail as the deceased was caught hold by the present petitioner and some poisonous substance was put in the mouth of the deceased by the main accused. It is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in case Adri Dharam Dass Vs. State of West Bengal 2005(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 32 that powers exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are somewhat extra ordinary in character and is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person may be falsely implicated. So, the petitioner in order to seek the relief of anticipatory bail in this case is required to make out a special case in his favour or the case appears to be false or where the applicant is likely to be Crl.Misc. No.M-19265 of 2010 [3] harassed unnecessarily due to some extraneous reasons. Similarly, in Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 366, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:- “(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (ii)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 as well. (iii)In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.” So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, no ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the present petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 12, 2010. raghav