Crl. Misc. No. M-2118 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-2118 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : March 23, 2011 Rajwinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Salar & Baljinder Singh, Advocates for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala, vide FIR No.10 dated 8th January, 2011. Complaint was lodged by Kulwant Kaur, who brought to the notice of the authorities that petitioner had entered into government service by claiming that her date of birth was 5th December, 1972 while according to certificate issued by Registrar, Births and Deaths, Punjab, it was 14th May, 1958. Thus, the petitioner had got benefit of more than 14 years by submitting a wrong certificate of date of birth. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the complaint had been lodged by sister of the petitioner as there was a property dispute between them. According to him, the complaint is Crl. Misc. No. M-2118 of 2011 totally motivated. He has referred to the identity-card issued by Election Commission of India and submits that the age of the petitioner as on 1st January, 1995 was 22 years and thus, her date of birth is correctly recorded as 5th December, 1972. He also sought permission of the court to place on record counter affidavit of the petitioner dated 9th March, 2011. The prayer was allowed. The same was taken on record. Learned counsel referred to the counter affidavit to show the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the voter list, Annexure P-19. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the contentions of counsel for the petitioner. He has referred to affidavit dated 1st March, 2011 of Davinder Singh, Dy. S.P. Patran and submits that detailed inquiry was conducted by the said officer. From the inquiry conducted, it transpired that there was a terrorist attack on the family of the complainant on 14th July, 1991, in which her father, mother and brother were killed. She had lodged FIR No.68 dated 28th July, 1991 regarding the said incident showing her age as 30 years. She was inducted in Punjab Police on 25th February, 1994 and absorbed as police constable on 1st May, 2002. At the time of entry in service, however, she showed her date of birth as 15th December, 1972, thus getting undue advantage of more than 14 years. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Crl. Misc. No. M-2118 of 2011 It is evident that an inquiry was conducted into the matter by Dy. S.P. Patran. On the basis of the same, he had concluded that actual date of birth of the petitioner was 14th May, 1958. He recorded the statements of certain persons from the village who stated that petitioner was studying with them in 9th/10th class in the year 1975-76. Thus, in case the petitioner had been born in 1972, she could not have been in 9th/10th class in the year 1975-76. The Enquiry Officer also recorded statement of Beant Kaur, sister-in-law of the petitioner, who stated that in the year 1982, age of the petitioner was 22/23 years and she was unmarried at that time. In view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre- arrest bail. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is dismissed. Nothing observed herein above shall, however, be taken to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 23, 2011 'rajpal'