Crl.M.No.M-28927 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-28927 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 1, 2010 Sadhu Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.51699 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.51700 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-28927 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.39, dated 25.5.2010, under Sections 167, 406, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Daba, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. Initially petitioner-accused had filed an application for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 9.6.2010. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.No.M-17454 of 2010 for anticipatory bail before this Court and however, after issuing notice to the State, the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 20.7.2010. However, instead of surrendering before the Investigating Crl.M.No.M-28927 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Officer, he has filed the present petition for anticipatory bail on the same facts again after about two months. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he was posted as Patwari in the Revenue Department at the relevant time and that he in connivance with co-accused issued a forged jamabandi of the land in dispute after deleting the entry regarding the land being mortgaged with Punjab Financial Corporation and hence cheating was committed by co- accused by selling the same to the complainant for an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- on the basis of said forged jamabandi issued by the present petitioner-accused. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather, his custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Sadhu Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge