Full Judgment
CRM not M-39058 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-39058 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.12.2012 Davinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, on 19.10.2012, a police party headed by SHO of Police Station Verowal was present at Gharaat River, Nagoke for patrolling, where he received a secret information that petitioner Davinder Singh son of Dilbagh Singh and his other co-accused Baljinder Singh alias Tota Singh son of Sajan Singh, Manjit Singh alias Baba son of Mangal Singh, Harpreet singh alias Happy son of Sahab Singh and Nirvail Singh son of Binder Singh have formed a gang and they used to snatch the motorcycles, cash and jewellery from the passersby at gun point. They are also involved in illegal sales of stolen vehicles. On that day, all the accused were present near the bridge of Jawandhpur Canal, armed with weapons and were planning to loot the CRM not M-39058 of 2012 (O&M) 2 people and commit the heinous crime. Consequently, the raid was conducted, where the accused were found making preparation/planning to loot the cash from the bank of Miawind. All the remaining accused were arrested except petitioner Davinder Singh, who escaped from the place of occurrence. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of ruqqa of SHO, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.106 dated 19.10.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 399, 402 and 411 IPC by the police of Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran, in the manner described here-in-above.
2. Having exercised and remained unsuccessful of his right before the Additional Sessions Judge, not the petitioner has preferred the present petition for anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
4. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has no connection with the gang of other co-accused, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
5. As per prosecution version, there are direct allegations in the FIR that the petitioner is a member of gang of other co-accused, used to commit dacoity and loot the people at gun point. The names of all the CRM not M-39058 of 2012 (O&M) 3 accused, including the petitioner, are mentioned in the FIR. All the accused, except the petitioner, were arrested at the spot. Two stolen motorcycles were also recovered from them. The mere fact that the petitioner ran away/escaped from the place of occurrence, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to him, as urged on his behalf. To me, as the involvement of petitioner in the commission of heinous offences is apparent, the manner/design to commit the grave offences, his involvement in such other cases is yet to be ascertained and recovery is yet to be effected, therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential. In case, he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of stolen vehicles, his involvement in such other cases and effective investigation is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of stolen vehicles from the petitioner and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is 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. At the same time, 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. 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 trial of main case, the present petition filed by the CRM not M-39058 of 2012 (O&M) 4 petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
7. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition in this relevant direction. 11.12.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge