CRM No.M-29360 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-2.11.2010 Pardeep Kumar and Pawan sons of Pirthi Singh ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 IPC., petitioners Pardeep Kumar and Pawan sons of Pirthi Singh, have instituted the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused Harish Kumar, vide FIR No.79 dated 20.8.2010, on accusation of having committed an offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 506 (subsequently added offence under section 326 IPC) read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 4. What is not disputed here is that there are direct allegations that petitioner Pardeep Kumar gave sword blows on the head and ankle, while petitioner Pawan caused a danda blow on the person of complainant Rajesh Kumar. As the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential in the present case. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Shish Pal, has pointed out that petitioner Pardeep Kumar is a habitual offender, history sheeted accused and is CRM No.M-29360 of 2010 2 involved in another case registered against him, vide FIR No.142 dated 16.4.2007 under sections 147, 148, 307, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh. That means, there are direct allegations that the petitioner is indulging in such like cases. 5. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under the present set of circumstances. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 2.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge