CRM.M-17323 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on July 30,2009. Raj Pal -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. Present: Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.198 dated 17.10.2008 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 at Police Station, Taraori, ,Karnal. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail vide Crl.Misc.No.M 1947 of 2009, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.S.Bedi, on 6.3.2009 observing as under:- “The petitioner,as per the contents of the FIR has been stamped a thoroughly corrupt official indulging in demanding and receiving a sum of Rs.200/- per consumer while providing electricity connections under a scheme of the government to provide CRM.M-17323 of 2009 (O&M) 2 electricity connections to the persons below poverty line. On the basis of the allegations of the consumers, the FIR stands registered and he has also been suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no recovery of any tainted amount has been made from the petitioner and that it is not within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the petitioner to provide any electric connection to any of the consumers under the above said scheme. He has further contended that one of the complainant, namely Satpal is inimical towards the petitioner as the petitioner has got permanent disconnection of his electric connection on account of his having failed to pay the bill. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, no doubt, has got a probable defence against complainant Satpal but there have been consistent complaints against the petitioner for demanding and receiving money from the consumers. The plea of the petitioner that it is not his duty to provide electric connection, may be a good defence and ground for seeking the concession of regular bail but granting pre-arrest bail to a CRM.M-17323 of 2009 (O&M) 3 person against whom there are a number of complaints of corruption, cannot be granted the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The petition is dismissed. This order will not, in any manner, affect the rights of the petitioner to seek regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction be issued that the application for regular bail of the petitioner may be decided on the same day. The petitioner will be at liberty to make such a request to the Court concerned at the time of applying regular bail”. Inspite of applying for regular bail, the petitioner filed another anticipatory bail before vacation Judge (Addl.Sessions Judge-I), Karnal, on the strength of some new documents. The said application was dismissed on 16.6.2009. The present petition has been filed thereafter along-with Annexures P-3 to P-6. It is submitted that some persons have sworn affidavits that their thumb impressions or signatures were taken on blank papers by the complainant in order to file a case against the petitioner. Be that as it may, I am afraid that no relief could be granted to the petitioner much-less the relief of CRM.M-17323 of 2009 (O&M) 4 anticipatory bail on the strength of affidavits Annexures P- 3 to P-6. Hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioner may apply for regular bail. He shall be at liberty to make a request to the Court concerned for decision of bail at an early date. July 30,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) RR Judge