Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Punjab



 




 





!
"#$%$ &'
(
 )*+,-


 



   



 '
./
01
0 
 0


 






 
 





 !


 


"#


$$$  0
-

2/3' %
 



 

 
&'(

 ) *
+  !
 !

(,(-
.
 
/)+01
!
 2 





34

 2 34
+ "

 
   08.08.2024 Raja Sansi, District Amritsar Rural 303(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Section 25 of Arms Act, (




  


 
34


 




 

  
*

   5 
 

,'

,'

(,(&



 



  *

  *
#  
*
"


5 *

!
 

   


  *




  !



 
  


 

6

 
 

78'

,'

(,(&


 


  *



  
72'
! 
 
 


%*

  
 
 


 


*
! 
  
  

  



6



 
 
  

  

 




*
 








%
  

9 
%

   
 





 
 

 *2
 
  

 
 

 
 
  

  
 



 




 
:

 

!



  
  

  




 
 *
4 

  

34
 
    



 


*
 










  




 
 
*

5  
 


;  


 
 
 

(& ,< (,(&

-

%
 



 
*





 






*

 




  *
   
 

% 

 *



:
 

 


 
  
%
  
 

   

 


 



  

*

 
 



 
 
 
 




 
 
%


*


  
=






9  
+
  *

 
 



%  







 

 




 






4 4.

Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has submitted that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He was named in the FIR. Recovery of stolen articles is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is required for such recovery as well as for conducting thorough investigation in the matter by the police. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. %  









 






5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6.

The petitioner along with 7-8 unknown persons is alleged to have committed theft of % *2
 

 

 
 
  
 
 
 



 
 


!



*
"


5 *




  

  

" 2 

%



 *
 

 34
%
  *

 
  



 



For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but for several other purposes also. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to

 the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

7.

It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application if any is rendered infructuous.

5 0
6


 

(
 )*+,-