IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-30378 of 2009
Date of decision : November 10, 2009
Manjinder Singh alias Meera
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Manjinder Singh alias Meera has filed this petition for
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 294 dated 6.10.2009 under sections 341,
506, 34 and 382 (added later on) IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police
Station City Abohar, District Ferozepur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co-accused
came in a jeep and obstructed the complainant while he was unloading
luggage from his car in his house. Occupants of the jeep started abusing
the complainant. When a neighbour came, occupants of the jeep fled away
along with their jeep. However, again, they waylaid the complainant and
his neighbour at midnight while they were on way to the house of
Criminal Misc. No. M-30378 of 2009 -2-
another person. The complainant was pulled out of his car and was
extended death threat by the occupants of the jeep. When people gathered,
the occupants of the jeep fled away leaving behind the jeep. From jeep,
three swords and live cartridge were recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence
under section 382 IPC which has been added later on has been made out
from the averments in the FIR. However, learned State counsel, on
instructions from ASI Puran Chand, stated that complainant by making
supplementary statement stated that the accused persons had taken away Rs
1000/- and wallet of the complainant and the same are yet to be recovered.
Keeping in view the fact that the jeep was left at the spot and
live cartridge and three swords were recovered from the jeep and the fact
that the complainant was attacked twice with interval of half an hour only
and all other circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on
merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
( L.N. Mittal )
November 10, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'