Crl.M.No.M-27227 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-27227 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 16, 2010 Gagandeep Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.48604 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-27227 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65, dated 16.5.2010, under Sections 457, 380, 447, 511, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 6.8.2010 and 3.9.2010, Annexures P2 and P3, respectively. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he alongwith co-accused entered the house of the complainant, attacked him, tried to take forcible possession of the land and in the process had taken away 13000 Australian dollors, two imported watches, stereo and video camera. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that parties are closely related and that in fact petitioner is nephew of complainant and there was dispute regarding partition of property between Crl.M.No.M-27227 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the brothers. Further contends that on the similar facts co-accused have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lushiana. However, a perusal of the file shows that petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused, i.e., his parents, had filed a petition for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, however, anticipatory bail application on behalf of the present petitioner was got dismissed as withdrawn, whereas anticipatory bail was granted to his parents being old persons. On the same facts, he again filed application for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed on the ground that co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail being old, inform and female persons and that recovery of stolen articles is yet to be effected from the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Gagandeep Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 16.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge