IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.M-21021 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18. 8.2009 Inder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.APS Deol, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has filed the application for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.689 dated 24.6.2009 under Section 409 IPC at Police Station City Hisar. On 21.6.2009, on a secret information, Sub Inspector-Karnail Singh along with other police officials raided the house of Sunil son of Nand Lal Chabra in connection with betting regarding cricket match which was going on. In the said raid Sunil son of Nand Lal Chabra, Sunil son of Des Sewak and Kamal son of Gangadhar, all residents of Hisar were found indulging in betting of cricket match between Pakistan and Sri Lanka (20- 20). They were apprehended with cash of Rs.3,32,000/-, one T.V. set, 9 mobiles sets and one Parcha Satta. Rs.90,000/- was recovered from Sunil son of Des Sewak, Rs.1,58,000/- was recovered from Sunil son of Nand Lal Chabra and Rs.83,800 was recovered from Kamal son of Gangadhar. On the basis of recoveries, FIR No.678 dated 21.6.2009 under Sections 3, 4, 13-A, 3/67 of Gambling Act and Sections 489 B, 489-C/ 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station City, Hisar. Crl.Misc.M-21021 of 2009 (O&M) As per the allegations in the FIR, which has been registered at the instance of Karnail Singh, Sub-Inspector against the petitioner, after raid dated 21.6.2009 and the recovery aforesaid, the complainant (SI-Karnail Singh), on the instructions of SHO, had to go to City Hisar and areas around in a haste in connection with government duty. In the meantime he handed over the case property of cash Rs.3,32,000/-, one T.V. set and 9 mobiles sets etc. to the petitioner for keeping the same in safe custody, in the presence of EASI Sita Ram and EASI Munshi Ram . On the directions of SHO, SI Karnail Singh proceeded for govt. duty in the night only. At 7:00 A.M. in the morning, the petitioner handed over the complainant a key and told that he was going for some work. The complainant (SI-Karnail Singh) told the petitioner to give him the case property of cricket gambling case but the petitioner made an excuse and left. The complainant got suspicious and searched the case property in presence of EASI Sita Ram, EASI Munshi Ram and Constable Parveen Kumar, the lock of the trunk was opened and it was noticed that there was fiddling with the envelop containing cash. In the presence of both the colleagues, when the cash pertaining to case property of Cricket gambling was about to be counted, in the meantime, the petitioner arrived in the chowki and kept on moving around. However, on counting, it was found that Rs.40,000/- was less in the case property of Rs.3,32,000/-. When the petitioner was asked about the shortage, he could not give any satisfactory reply and left and rather told that he shall make good the case property. In this context, the FIR was registered in which it was also mentioned that the petitioner did not even lodge the accused of the case in the lock up in the night. 2 Crl.Misc.M-21021 of 2009 (O&M) Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which was dismissed on 7.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been involved in a false case. He made reference to Annexure P-2 according to which, on 22.6.2009, complainant (SI-Karnail Singh) had lodged the case property of cricket gambling case at Police Station Sadar, Hisar and handed over the same to MMASI, P.S.City, Hisar thorugh a memo on the same day at 9.30 AM and left the Police Station City, Hisar for Police Station Sadar, Hisar and then for courts at Hisar. On 22.6.2009, at 2.20 P.M., he arrived at Police Station City Hisar, after producing the accused in the court in Cricket gambling case and after the judicial remand, all the accused were lodged in Central Jail, Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case property of the cricket gambling case was never handed over to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for State has submitted that document Annexure P-4, narrates another story that complainant (SI-Karnail Singh) has shown his arrival at about 11.00 A.M. on 22.6.2009 in which he has recorded that he had arrested the accused in cricket gambling case and the case property of that case was handed over to the petitioner giving him direction that he should lodge them in lock up as he had received a telephone call from the senior officers to raid at some place, therefore, he had to leave immediately. On 22.6.2009 at about 3.35 PM, the complainant (SI-Karnail Singh) returned back to the police post after the raid and found that accused in the cricket gambling case were not lodged in the lock up and were sitting in the room of the petitioner, where cooler was on. Therefore, it 3 Crl.Misc.M-21021 of 2009 (O&M) was recorded that a separate note was written with regard to indiscipline against the petitioner. On the same day i.e. 22.6.2009, at about 7 P.M., he asked the petitioner to bring the case property of cricket gambling case on which he produced a polythene packet containing cash amount whose mouth was open and Rs.40,000/- were short. Learned State counsel also argued that on 23.6.2009, at 11:00 AM, when ASP, Pankaj Nain, IPS visited the police post, the petitioner requested for time to make good the loss. Learned State counsel has argued that the investigation of the case is at the initial stage. It is yet to be established that as to whether document Annexure P-2 or Annexure P-4 is fake. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and also the fact that investigation of this case is at the initial stage, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of extra ordinary remedy of anticipatory bail as no extra ordinary circumstance has been shown by the petitioner. Therefore, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. [ Rakesh Kumar Jain ] Judge 18.8.2009 sd 4