RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sandhu has opposed the bail application on the plea that the petitioner has concealed certain material facts and so he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. In fact, certain directions were given to the petitioner by the Jammu Court to seek the regular bail from the Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner apprehending his arrest applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sessions which declined the bail and that is why the petitioner has come to the High Court. No case for custodial interrogation of the petitioner is made out in public interest. Directions are given to the Magistrate that in the event of the appearance of the petitioner before him, he shall be enlarged on bail. The petitioner shall also apply for regular bail before the learned Magistrate.