IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3677 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2011 Rajinder Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.35 dated 28.2.2005 under Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18, 36 of PUDA Act, Police Station Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Offence is bailable, hence petition seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be pressed in service when accused is apprehending arrest in a non-bailable offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that present petition is moved because petitioner has every apprehension that he would be arrested and shall not be enlarged on bail. Apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is mis- conceived. As per Section 436 Cr.P.C., if an accused of bailable offence is arrested or is brought before the Court he shall be released on bail. Accused of a bailable offence has every legal right to be enlarged on bail. In view of the above, petition is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge February 04, 2011 R.S.