SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail.He is wanted in FIR No. 126/91 under Sections 506/342 read with Section 34IPC pertaining to P.S. Keshav Puram (Lawerence Road, Delhi).

(2.) He was allowed interim anticipatory bail. On putting in appearancethe State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. Arguments have beenheard. The relevant portion of the prosecution story as given in the FIR maybe seen. On 24.6.91 one Vijay Kumar Gupta reported that he was wrokingas a property dealer and travel agent. On 21.6.91 at about 4.30 A.M. Bittoand Surinder Pandit, already known to him, came to his house and called him.He had earlier refused them once or twice the hire of his vehicle. Bitto toldhim that the petitioner was calling him in Jai Mata Market because he wantedto hire a vehicle. The complainant knew the petitioner also earlier. Heaccompanied them. When they reached near the office of Bajrang Dal, Bittowhipped out a knife and on its strength directed him MURGA BAN JA.The complainant accordingly obeyed. Bitto and Surinder Pandit also gavebeatings to him. This occurrence took place on 21.9.91. On 24.9.91 at about8.15 P.M., Bitto. Surinder and the petitioner met him near P.N. Bank, TriNagar. The petitioner asked him as to why he had reported the matter tothe police. Petitioner then took out something like a revolver and fired. Thecomplainant ran to his house. The complainant was also threatend with lifeby the petitioner and others.

(3.) On the basis of the facts mentioned in the complaint. I am of theview that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. As stated by learnedCounsel for the State the weapon used by the petitioner has also to be recovered. Argument on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant does not knowwhat weapon actually was used does not entitle the petitioner to any relief atthis stage. The fact that the petitioner fired from some weapon is quite seriousand the Court should not jeopardise the investigation by granting anticipatorybail. The petition is dismissed. The order of anticipatory bail is revoked.