CRM No.M-29586 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-6.10.2010 Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Vijay Kumar son of Shyam Lal, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and his other co- accused, vide FIR No.447 dated 17.8.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 205, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station City Gurgaon, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 3. There are direct allegations against the petitioner that he used to fill up the blank proformas of jamabandi and ration card supplied to him by his co- accused Dariao Singh. They prepared the forged documents of jamabandi and ration card and used the same as genuine by submitting in the Court as fake sureties for the accused. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, to me, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the entire scandal. 4. It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect CRM No.M-29586 of 2010 2 the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible. 5. In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to my mind, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 6.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge