BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is stated to have committed offences under Sc. 354/452/506, Indian Penal Code. The nature of the charge against the petitioner as contained in the First Information Repot is serious. A perusal of the police diary shows that the investigation so far conducted has revealed the complicity of the petitioner in the case. Whether or not the accusation is correct is not to be seen at this stage as indeed such consideration would be pre -mature and I would not like to express any opinion on that aspect of the case.

(2.) SUFFICE it to say that the accusation against him are of a serious nature. Mr. I.S. Balhara, Advocate, appearing for the state his submitted that efforts were made by the Police to contact the petitioner for interrogation purpose thrice at his residence as well as in the office where he was posted but he was not available. Since an order of anticipatory bail is somewhat of an extra -ordinary character, while exercising discretion, the court must be satisfied that a fit case had been made out by the accused for the exercise of the discretion. I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out case for being admitted to anticipatory bail. The petition is accordingly rejected. Petition Rejected