Mr. S.K.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) This is an application by Dinesh Kumar (Petitioner), who is at present working as a Junior Engineer at Nokh, District Jaisalmer, for the grant of anticipatory bail, who claims to have reasons to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed offence punishable under sections 452 and 323, I. P. C.
(2.) The circumstances under which this application has been filed may be briefly stated as follows:- The wife of Harish Chandra complainant informed him, when he returned from his office at 5.15 p. m. on June 1, 1978, that the petitioner suddenly entered their house without permission. He pulled the hand of their daughter Usha and further threatened to fracture her legs. Harish Chandra complainant lodged the complaint with the police station, Sardarpura, on June 2, 1978 at 1.30 p. m. The police registered the case against the petitioner under section 452 and 323, I. P. C. Investigation by the police is being made. The petitioner submitted an application under section 439, Cr. P. C. for the grant of anticipatory bail but the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, vide his order dated June 12, 1973, rejected that application. Hence he has moved this application. On 16th June, 1978, I directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the police diary for my perusal. On 9th June, 1978, the police diary relating to the case was produced and I have perused it. On the same day Harish Chandra complainant submitted an affidavit mentioning inter alia that a case for offences under sections 307, 147, 149, 427, 448 and 504, I. P. C. was registered against the petitioner on 20th April, 1978 and an order for submitting a challan against him has already been made. It was further stated that he was granted anticipatory bail but he took advantage of his liberty and committed the offences under sections 452 and 323, I. P. C. It needs to be mentioned here that in para 2 of the affidavit, the complainant had stated that the petitioner came to his house on 5th June, 1978 and threatened his wife by saying that the complainant should withdraw the case from the police, otherwise her daughter Uma would be kidnapped and further threatened her to kill. The allegations made in the affidavit were controverted by the petitioner. He filed a counter-affidavit on 19th June, 1978.
(3.) On 20th June, 1978, the petitioner filed an application under section 296 (2) read with sections 311 and 482, Cr. P. C. praying therein that the petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the complainant, to find out the truth. After hearing the arguments, I am satisfied that the permission sought by the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant should not be granted. I, therefore, reject the application of the petitioner under section 296(2) read with sections 311 and 482, Cr. P. C.;