CRM No. M-10330 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-10330 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2009 Mohd. Anjar Khan @ Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition for pre-arrest bail, preferred by accused Mohd. Ansar Khan in a case registered against him under Sections 387, 336 & 307 IPC (Section 307 IPC added later on) and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Focal Point Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the petitioner was granted regular bail. However, after Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR, he apprehends imminent arrest at the hands of the police. He, therefore, prays that he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are that they had been threatening the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.2.00 crores and shots were also fired at his house as well as car. The order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana shows that during investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rahul Singh, driver CRM No. M-10330 of 2009 2 of the complainant who revealed the names of the petitioner and his co- accused as having been involved in the conspiracy. The police conducted scientific investigation and found that accused had been threatening the complainant. Prima facie, the petitioner and his co- accused appear to be a well-connected and organized gang. In view of the fact that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be absolutely necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy and to take the investigation to its logical end. The telephone numbers, from which the threatening calls were made to the complainant, who is a businessman of Ludhiana, have already come on record. The investigating agency appears to be in middest of collecting evidence. Any protective order granted to the petitioner, may hamper the investigation of the case. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 18, 2009 'rajpal'