Crl. Misc. No.M-11892 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-11892 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.05.2010 Jitender Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, pending trial, in case FIR No.52 dated 29.01.2009 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being involved in the present case without any fault on his part and moreover, the petitioner was produced before the Panchayat but the complainant could not identify him. Further, the petitioner stands absolved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Kurukshetra vide his report placed on record as P-1 and since, there is no material against the petitioner to suggest his involvement in the present case, he is ready to join the investigation. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant had gone to Crl. Misc. No.M-11892 of 2010 2 the State Bank of India, Railway Road, Kurukshetra on 28.01.2009 to deposit a sum of Rs.2.5 lac. While he was filling up the voucher, a boy, to whom he thought an employee of the Bank, asked him to fill up Form 60 and leave the money on the counter. Accordingly, the complainant believing him to the Bank employee, kept the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs on the counter and went to get Form 60 and when he returned back, the money and the boy was missing. The CCTV footage was seen and the complainant was able to search the said boy. The said photograph of the petitioner and the photograph captured in the CCTV were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. As per the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, there is a close resemblance of the facial features in both the photographs. The opinion/result of Central Forensic Science Laboratory is as under :- “ On the basis of examination and comparison of the facial features contained the exhibits photograph B/1 to B/8 with the facial feature contained and control photographs C1, C2, C3 and C4, it has been observed that the class characteristics facial feature in the face of the exhibit photographs. B1 to B8 has been found to similar with the face in the control photographs C1, C2, C3 and C4.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Sub Inspector Baldev Singh, pointed out that following other cases are also registered against the present petitioner :- (i)FIR NO.324 dated 16.06.2006 under Sections 332, 353, 382, 186 IPC, Police Station City Thanesar. (ii)FIR No.648 dated 24.12.2006 under Section 389 IPC, Police Station City Thanesar. (iii)FIR No.436 dated 16.09.2008 under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station City Thanesar. Crl. Misc. No.M-11892 of 2010 3 The petitioner appears to be a habitual offender. The allegations against the petitioner are such that require custodial interrogation. Grant of interim bail will scuttle the investigation. No ground for concession of bail is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 04.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet