The main legal point established is that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases, and there should be a balance between preventing harassment of the accused and ensuring a fair investigation.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.05 dated 19.01.2020, registered under Sections 307, 323, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Phase-8, District SAS Nagar Mohali.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein has been involved in the present false case by twisting the fact whereas, no such complaint was made by the wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that there was an altercation between husband and wife and due to that complainant-respondent No.2 reported the matter to the police wherein, no such allegation of firing of shot was alleged and in this regard, complainant-respondent No.2 already executed an affidavit. It is argued that the petitioner never maltreated or harassed his wife on account of demand of dowry. It is also contended that as per the investigating agency, weapon has already been recovered, as such, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required. Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the affidavit of the complainant (Annexure P-2) wherein, she has stated that she only signed the complaint and had not written it nor it was read over to her before signing and by using the said complaint, the instant false FIR has been registered. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the said affidavit, the complainant has categorically stated that due to some misunderstanding between her and her husband, an altercation took place and in order to get the matter sorted out, her daughter called the police help line number. It is also argued that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and cooperate.

3. Status report filed by the respondent-State by way of affidavit of Mr. Ramandeep Singh, PPS, DSP City-II, SAS Nagar along with its annexures is taken on record and copies thereof have been handed over to the opposite counsel.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would argue that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer along with police party as well as complainant and her daughter visited and inspected the spot i.e. Flat No.243, United Cooperative Society, Sector 68, Mohali and inspected from where, she recovered an empty cartridge and a pellet from the drawing room of the said flat and took into possession the same. It is submitted that the complainant produced a pistol .32 bore and a magazine along with one live cartridge, which was having No.1011 AUTO PISTOL, only USA Supply on one side of barrel of pistol and made in USA on the second side of the pistol, however, the same is a country made weapon and not the service weapon of the petitioner.

5. Learned State counsel has also shown CCTV footage of the altercation that took place at Satva, Sector 26, Chandigarh between the petitioner herein and his wife i.e. the complainant on the mobile phone of the Investigating Officer in the court wherein, it appears that the petitioner herein had shoved away his wife i.e. the complainant with force.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have through the pleadings of the case and the status report filed.

7. Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure contains the provisions for grant of anticipatory bail and the following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:-

i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

iv. The possibility of the accuseds likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humili