IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 28113 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.9.2010 Satnam Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with two other employees of the police department had prepared forged and fabricated verification reports of the persons whose character verifications were sought. An inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Batala and it was reported that the petitioner along with two other employees had prepared forged and fabricated reports. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Head Constable and was posted at Verification Record Clerk Branch, DPO, Batala. His job was to make entries of the applications received from the Crl. Misc. No. M- 28113 of 2010 [2] departments for getting verification of the persons from their respective Police Stations. After making entries in the concerned register, the petitioner was to send the same through dak messengers of the concerned Police Stations to the Police Stations from which verification was to be got done. After verification reports were received from the Police Stations, the applications along with the reports were sent back to the concerned department, which had sought the verification report. It is submitted that the petitioner has been doing his job according to the norms as prescribed by the Department and in the FIR it has been specifically mentioned that the receiving and sending of the verification reports from the concerned Police Stations had been found to be duly entered in the register. It is submitted that the petitioner’s job was not to prepare the verification reports. Rather, it was the job of the police officials of the respective Police Stations. Therefore, the petitioner has no concern with any defects that may have been found by the Inquiry Officer in the verification reports that were prepared and submitted by the Police officials of the concerned Police Stations. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I find no merit in the same. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in his order dated 8.7.2010 while declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner has observed that it was found that on four verification reports, signatures of the SHOs were forged as per the report given by Superintendent of Police Crl. Misc. No. M- 28113 of 2010 [3] (Headquarters), Batala. The petitioner, it was found, was the main accused in the case and he had forged the verification reports in connivance with PHFC Roor Singh and HC Lakhwinder Singh. It was found that ten verification reports were forged and fabricated. The petitioner is alleged to have forged verification reports in connivance with two other officials. As such, it is not a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. In case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful information and material from an accused is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre- arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 23, 2010 amit