Crl. Misc. No. M-32266 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-32266 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 09, 2011 Raman Ruminder Kaur alias Raman Rupinder Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-32266 of 2011 filed by Raman Ruminder Kaur alias Raman Rupinder Kaur and Crl. Misc. No. M-32558 of 2011 filed by Nirmal Singh – both seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.101 dated 28.09.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga. I have heard learned counsel for both the petitioners and learned State counsel and also perused the case file. Crl. Misc. No. M-32266 of 2011 2 Jamabandi entry was tampered with and changed in Computer Center. On inquiry, it was revealed that petitioner Raman Ruminder Kaur took the record from the Computer Center and kept it with one juice vendor, from where petitioner Nirmal Singh took away the record and after tampering with it, kept it in the Computer Center. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that one Jaswinder Singh – Supervisor of the Computer Center is the real culprit and in order to save his skin, the petitioners are being made scapegoats. It was also contended that another Jaswinder Singh has made application to the police that Jaswinder Singh – Supervisor had taken some money from applicant Jaswinder Singh for changing some other record. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the petitioners are wanted on the basis of inquiry report, and therefore, their custodial interrogation is required and they do not deserve anticipatory bail. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Application moved by another Jaswinder Singh against Supervisor Jaswinder Singh has no bearing on the present case at this stage because the said application does not relate to the tampering of the record involved in the instant case. FIR has been registered after inquiry, wherein statements of all Computer Operators were recorded and it was prima facie revealed that the present two petitioners are responsible for the tampering of the record. Crl. Misc. No. M-32266 of 2011 3 Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. November 09, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE