Tinku vs State of Punjab

Alok Singh, J.—This is the second petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 490 dated 19.11.2010, under Sections 323/324/380/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

Petitioner had filed first anticipatory bail being Crl. Misc. No. 10606 of 2011. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2011 had granted interim anticipatory bail to the Petitioner subject to the following conditions:

i)that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

First anticipatory bail petition came up for hearing before this Court on 04.05.2011. On 04.05.2011, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI Tarsem Singh, had reported that despite of directions issued by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2011, Petitioner did not join the investigation and failed to report to the Investigating Officer.

On the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that Petitioner did not join the investigation, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has withdrawn the first anticipatory bail petition stating that Petitioner shall surrender before the Illaqa Magistrate on or before 16.05.2011 and shall seek regular bail there from.

On being asked, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has fairly stated that despite of undertaking given to this Court on 04.05.2011, Petitioner did not surrender before the Illaqa Magistrate on or before 16.05.2011. He further states that Petitioner has not surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate on 16.05.2011 because Petitioner wanted to move second bail application.

From the record it reveals that Petitioner did not join the investigation despite of directions issued by this Court on 07.04.2011 on his first anticipatory bail application and thereafter has not surrendered before the Competent Magistrate as undertook by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 04.05.2011.

Considering the conduct of the Petitioner, Petitioner is not entitled for extra ordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

Petition is misconceived, therefore is dismissed.