“5. “After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, during the course of investigation, the inquiry was conducted by the Police, and the petitioner was found to be innocent. Even, the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order Annexure P-2, stopped the proceedings against the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at, by the Investigating Agency, is not binding upon the Court, for coming to a particular decision. The Court is required to decide the matter, on the basis of independent material, placed on record. Since, after framing the charges, some evidence was recorded and the petitioner was named, as one of the alleged perpetrators of crime, as he allegedly, participated therein, by causing two injuries, with soti on the leg of the deceased, in my considered opinion, the concession of anticipatory bail is not warranted. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail, is an extra-ordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances. This case does not present any exceptional circumstance, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, heinous nature of the offences, and the attending circumstances, in which alleged offences were committed, no ground, whatsoever, is made out for the acceptance of Crl. Misc. No. M-4559 of 2010 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
