CRM M-15013 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-15013 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.8.2009 Raj Kumar @ Raja ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG Haryana for the State/respondent. Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.223 dated 23.8.2008 under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Butana, District Karnal. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Sukhbir Singh who had stated that he had purchased Tata-407 four-wheeler bearing registration No.HR-63-4917 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,85,000/- from the petitioner. It is alleged by the complainant that he had paid Rs.60,000/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was got financed from Sri Ram Finance Company, Karnal and was paid by way of cheque drawn in the name of the petitioner. It was later on found by the complainant that the petitioner had obtained a forged and fictitious Registration Certificate from Regional Transport Authority, Kaithal. When CRM M-15013 of 2009 -2- the complainant raised his doubt about the genuineness of the documents, the petitioner tried to evade the objection of the complainant on one pretext or the other and in the meantime in connivance with the Company, he took away the vehicle and sold it to somebody else. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because Registration Certificate (Annexure P- 6) has been duly issued by RTA Kaithal. He further submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. This fact is admitted by the counsel for the State, on instructions received from ASI Subhash Chand. However, learned State counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner had made a false statement before RTA Kaithal for the purpose of getting registration certificate because the said vehicle, namely, Tata-407 was earlier got registered with the Registering Authority at Yamuna Nagar by the petitioner himself. It is pointed out by the counsel for the complainant that two other cases have already been registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.122 dated 27.4.2009 under Sections 379/411/467/468/471/120-B at Police Station Sadar, Karnal and FIR No.24 of 2008 dated 29.1.2008 under Sections 406/120-B IPC at Police Station West Shimla. Keeping in view the nature of offence and antecedents of the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 27.8.2009 JUDGE Meenu