Vicky vs The State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, petitioner Vicky son of Neki Ram, has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 34 dated 24.4.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 395 IPC by the police of Police Station Bariwala, Distt. Muktsar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.4.2010 at about 10.30 P.M., complainant Sarvan Kumar and his companion were going in his Tralla bearing registration No. RJ-07-GA-2581 to Muktsar Kotkapura Road. As soon as, they crossed the canal, in the meantime, a Maruti car suddenly stopped in front of their Tralla. Thereafter, all the accused including the petitioner, carrying pistols and knives in their hands, came out of the Maruti car. They forcibly entered in the Tralla from both the sides and overpowered them by pointing pistols towards them. They tied their hands and put mat on them. Thereafter, the complainant and his companion were illegally detained and kept in some house in the fields.

Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that all the accused were armed with pistols and knives, kidnapped the complainant and his companion and looted their Tralla. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition.

As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that he alongwith his other co-accused was carrying pistols and knives, kidnapped the complainant and his companion and looted their Tralla. Such offences are increasing day by day. As the weapon of offence is yet to be recovered, therefore, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary at this stage and also to unearth the scam of loot and to elicit the truth in regard to the involvement of the petitioner in such other heinous crimes alongwith his other members of the gang.

It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible.

In this manner, 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 these circumstances.

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.

Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition.