Crl.M.No.M-20455 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-20455 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2011 Gursewak Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, DAG, Punjab. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75, dated 21.5.2010, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This is second application filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. His earlier bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.17082 of 2010 and, however, on the same facts he has filed the present second application. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he committed forgery and tempered with the order passed by learned Sub Registrar on an application moved by him before the Sub Registrar and that he used the said forged order before different authorities with intention to Crl.M.No.M-20455 of 2011(O&M) -2- take benefit of that forged and tempered document. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact he was cheated by complainant as complainant entered into an agreement to sell the property to petitioner of which he was not the owner and, that civil suit between the parties is also pending. It has also been contended that even the original application, on which order was allegedly tempered with has not come on the record. It is also contended that at the instance of petitioner, enquiry was also held vide which order was made to file the cancellation report. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that petitioner-accused has committed forgery of` order passed by learned Sub Registrar and that his custodial interrogation is necessary. It has been denied that any cancellation report has been filed in this case before the Court. It is also contended that even if some civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and the complainant, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the petitioner, who has forged the order passed by learned Sub Registrar. Further contends that he has been absconding as the FIR is dated 21.5.2010 and his earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2010. Hence, in view of these facts it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Gursewak Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-20455 of 2011(O&M) -3-