In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M 6864 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on July 21,2009. Satish Kumar -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KJMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Kunal Choker,Advocate,for the petitioner Ms.Rajni Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No.22 dated 21.1.2009 under Section 306/34 IPC at Police Station, Sadar Abohar,District Ferozepur. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Vinod Kumar in which he has stated that his father Lakhan Lal consumed some tablets of sulphas and committed suicide on 21.1.2009. A suicide note was recovered from his body addressed to D.S.P, Abohar in which he had categorically stated that while he was taking his father to the hospital, he told him that Sandeep Kumar son of Hardial, Chinna son of Sandeep Kumar, Ashok Kumar son of Manohar Lal and Satish Kumar, property dealer all got his signatures on blank papers by intoxicating him which can be misused for grabbing his land. CRM M 6864 of 2009 (O&M) -2- It is pertinent to mention here that before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, which was dismissed on 03.3.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. At the time of notice of motion, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bail to the co-accused has already been granted by this Court. However, it has been argued today that name of the petitioner does not find mentioned in the FIR. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the petitioner has made a misleading statement before the Court as the name of the petitioner is categorically mentioned in the FIR where a role has been ascribed to him In view of the misleading statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner despite the fact that he has alleged that co-accused has been granted bail, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge