IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M- 5663 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.4.2010 Peenu alias Meenu alias Parveen Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Kewal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate, for complainant. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of Peenu alias Meenu alias Parveen Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.18 dated 3.2.2010 under Sections 323/325/308/34 IPC registered at Police Station Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Notice of motion was issued on 25.2.2010 and the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and now he is no more required. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, learned counsel for the State submits that although the petitioner has joined the investigation but no recovery of hockey has been effected from him and he has not co-operated with the investigation. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the present petitioner caused injuries with hockey on various parts of body of the complainant i.e. ankles, thighs and hands. She also received injury on her Crl.Misc. No.M- 5663 of 2010 [2] back while falling on the ground. As per allegations in the FIR, the injuries attributed to the present petitioner are grievous in nature . Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant submits that because of the injuries caused to the complainant, complainant remained in the hospital for around 3 weeks and also in ICU for 8 days and still she is not in a fit condition to stand or walk. The complainant is also present in the Court who is not in a positon to even stand and with the help of stepper, she has reached to the Court. 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 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 Crl.Misc. No.M- 5663 of 2010 [3] 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 and nature 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 hereby dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE April 29, 2010. raghav