IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-28788 of 2009 Date of decision : 27.10.2009 Harbhajan Singh, Patwari .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.. S. D. ANAND, J. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that the petitioner, a Patwari in the Revenue Department, is alleged to have made relevant mutation entry on the basis of sale deed No.1138 dated 9.11.1966 which never ever came to be in existence. This is the precise allegation of the prosecution that the above entry had been made on the basis of a non- existent or forged documentation. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the entire prosecution presentation is a concoction and that the petitioner cannot be blamed for having made a mutation entry because he had done so on the presentation of the sale deed dated 9.11.1966 before him. Learned State Counsel argues that the petitioner being a revenue official could have obtained any other type of documentation to prove that sale deed dated 9.11.1966 did ever exist. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find it be a fit case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in this case wherein the allegation against him pertain to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13 (1) and 13(2)of P.C.Act, 1988. October 27, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE