Criminal Misc. No. 51387-M of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 51387-M of 2007 Date of decision : March 12, 2008 Ritu Jain @ Neeru Sood .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H. S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S. K. Sandhir, Advocate RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer made in present petition is for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 156 dated July 09, 2007 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 IPC at Police Station, Jandiala, District Amritsar. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that the real name of the petitioner is Rozi Bala daughter of Subhash Chander. She got different passports issued in different names. One passport No. B-1566594, file No. A-268-2000 was got issued on May 9, 2001 in the name of Ritu Jain wife of Rajesh Jain, resident of Railway Station Road, Gehri Mandi. Second passport bearing No. E-1949456, file No. W/O/103/2002 was got issued in the name of Meenu Rani wife of Rajesh Kumar Sood, resident of House No. 355, Street No. 1, Judge Nagar, Post Office Khanna Nagar, Amritsar on September 12, 2002. Further that she is facing trial in other FIR as well where her name is shown as Neeru Sood wife of Karan Sood. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the entire allegations are taken on its face value as correct only, offence under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 is made out, which is bailable. Criminal Misc. No. 51387-M of 2007 -2- **** Petitioner had already joined investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that present petition as such is not maintainable for the reason that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. 43406-M of 2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn after addressing some arguments on August 22, 2007. Accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that seeing the allegations against the petitioner her custodial interrogation is required as the offence committed by the petitioner is quite serious where she got different passports issued in her name and was having four different names and addresses as well. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are serious. As far as issuance of two passports are concerned, the same is not even disputed. In both the passports different names, husband's names and addresses are mentioned. In any case such allegations need detailed investigation. It is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, leaving the issue as to whether second petition is maintainable or not, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. March 12, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge