Crl. Misc. No. M-16575 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16575 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 01.11.2010 Rohit Kakkar ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Rohit Kakkar in case FIR No. 101 dated 27.2.2010 registered under Sections 363/366/376/342/323/379/506/120-B IPC at Police Station Indri, District Karnal. In this case, while issuing notice of motion on 28.5.2010, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded and arrest was also stayed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as he contracted marriage with the daughter of the complainant on 23.5.2009 Crl. Misc. No. M-16575 of 2010 (2) which was registered on 19.6.2009 and the petitioner as well as his wife were major at the time of marriage. The said marriage was solemnized with the consent of the other party. He further submits that co-accused have also applied for anticipatory bail before the trial Court and granted bail, whereas, the bail of the petitioner has been declined on the ground that the case is of serious in nature.” Learned counsel for the complainant on instructions from complainant, who is present in Court, submitted that the petitioner was already married and was having a female child from the earlier marriage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was neither married earlier nor was having any child. The petitioner got married with the daughter of the complainant and his wife went to her parental house as per her own sweet will and she never came back thereafter. On 21.9.2010 petitioner was asked to file an affidavit to the effect whether he was already married or not and the case was adjourned to 6.10.2010 and thereafter on 25.10.2010. On 25.10.2010, no such affidavit of the petitioner was filed and the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to file affidavit and the case was adjourned for today. Today also, no such affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced the photocopy of birth certificate issued by Registrar Births and Deaths, Jagadhri, wherein, date of birth of the child has been entered and the name of the petitioner is also clearly mentioned in the certificate. Learned counsel has also produced the entry of birth of the child issued by the Hospital where names of parents of child are also mentioned. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other Crl. Misc. No. M-16575 of 2010 (3) documents available on record. In this case, the petitioner has concealed so many material facts from this Court and has not disclosed the correct facts. On various occasions, he has made wrong statement that earlier the petitioner was not married and no child was there from the said marriage. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner got married with the daughter of the complainant without disclosing the fact that he was already married and was having one child from the said marriage and has been committing rape upon the daughter of the complainant. In view of the conduct of the petitioner that he has not only cheated the daughter of the complainant but also committed serious offence and has concealed material facts from this Court also, 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 concealed material facts, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. November 01, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-16575 of 2010 (4) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No