Crl.M.No.M-15823 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-15823 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 31, 2011 Amar Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.30883 of 2011 Requests for placing on record FIR No.76 dated 31.5.2010, Annexure P5. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-15823 of 2011 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.140, dated 27.4.2011, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani, Annexure P1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Facts relevant for decision of present petition are that petitioner and his son are accused in FIR No.76 dated 31.5.2010, Annexure Crl.M.No.M-15823 of 2011(O&M) -2- P5. A perusal of the said FIR shows that allegations against petitioner and co-accused, i.e., his son, namely, Sunil Kumar, are that a truck loaded with poppy husk was recovered from their possession by police. During proceeding in the said FIR No.76 dated 31.5.2010, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner attaching two certificates praying that co- accused, i.e. His son was juvenile on the date of commission of offence as his date of birth is 25.7.1992. On enquiry police found that the said certificates were forged one and in fact the date of birth of son of present petitioner, i.e., Sunil Kumar is 12.3.1989 and hence, forged certificates were filed in the Court to get declared co-accused Sunil Kumar as juvenile. Hence, in view of these facts, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner-accused is necessary to ascertain the true facts as to who forged the documents, on the basis of which application for declaring the co-accused of present petitioner as juvenile was filed. Moreover after the fact was brought to the notice of the Court, the application for getting declared co-accused Sunil Kumar as juvenile was also withdrawn by present petitioner-accused. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused. In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Amar Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 31.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-15823 of 2011(O&M) -3-