Crl. Misc. No. M-30912 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30912 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 13, 2011 Nirmaljit Kaur @ Nirmal Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Gagan Pradeep Singh Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Nirmaljit Kaur @ Nirmal Kaur has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.299 dated 07.09.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was an accused in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. She furnished bail bonds in the said case, but copy of Crl. Misc. No. M-30912 of 2011 2 jamabandi of land of the surety, annexed with the bail bonds, was found to be forged one. Keeping in view the aforesaid serious allegations against the petitioner, the question of extending extra-ordinary benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not arise. The petitioner is playing with the administration of justice. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that copy of jamabandi was annexed by the surety and not by the petitioner herself. The contention is completely misconceived. The personal bond of the petitioner as well as surety bond of her surety were furnished simultaneously in the presence of petitioner and obviously, the surety would not have forged the jamabandi for his own benefit, but did it for and at the instance of the petitioner prima facie. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition for anticipatory bail, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing in this order shall be taken to be expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 13, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE