High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14272/2025dismissed

Jitender v. State Of Haryana

2025-03-18Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra4 pages

"#$#%&'

( )"(*

& +, -. --

" #$%

&&& - */ ,0& ' ( )*+ , %!# # +-+. /

0,%12 #!

(34 ( 56 34% "

09.02.2025 Indri, District Karnal 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') + ' 34(! (

-7-++-+8!!

(

5 # 9 -8-++-+8 (

( (

2- :,$ %!/:, %2

(

5 #!

((!

( "

(

( ( $

; ! ( (

( #! <-= ,%5

! 4 !

( 5

! 6 ((

-=-.+-+8 . 4 !

(

( '

5 #

# (

5! !

' (( (!

5 (

( <-= ,% !

! > $ ! ' ! ( 5 ) % 8

!" #$%

(

3- "

(

( 5 # 5!

(

((

8-@ ( '

( $

5 5 5 :, %5 ( 5 # 5 5 $ ( % A !

5 (

A!( ( '

! ( 5 6.

( ! !

B '! !

! !

The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. No such extra ordinary circumstance has been appeared to be made out in this case due to the reason that no explanation has been submitted by the petitioner, as to why, the victim who was not an employee of UHBVN had been called by him at the spot and was made to climb at

4electric pole. The allegation that he had made a call to the victim before the incident has not been controverted. To elicit the truth, as to the manner in which the incident took place, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Even otherwise, the case is at its nascent stage. For conducting thorough investigation, the petitioner is required to be interrogated. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against him and the above discussed facts, I am of the considered opinion ( 5 Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

B 4 5 ( (

(

* (

1- 2 '

( )"(*