IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 35680 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2011 Gurjinder Singh Sarpanch and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case by the complainant due to enmity. Petitioner No. 1 had lodged a complaint against the complainant as he was running a clinic without any medical qualification. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioners to forge the signatures of the complainant on the alleged resolutions as the petitioner's party was already in majority. Moreover the resolution had been passed qua paving of streets, drains etc. No money had been withdrawn in terms of the resolutions in question. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab has argued that record of the Panchayat is yet to be recovered from the accused- petitioners, hence, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Crl. Misc. No. 35680 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has lodged a complaint on 2.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) to the SSP Khanna about the snatching of the proceeding register by Nachhatar Singh, hence, no record is in possession of the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab on the instructions of SI Samma Singh has stated that thorough enquiry was done on the complaint dated 2.10.2010 of the petitioner and same was found to be incorrect and false. He has further stated that record is yet to be recovered to find out the truth for which custodial interrogation is required. Discretion to grant anticipatory bail should not be exercised in favour of the accused, where complaint and conduct of the accused was found to be suspicious, false and incorrect. In the facts and circumstances of the case that story of the petitioner about the snatching of the panchayat record by Nachhatar Singh is found to be false and incorrect after investigation, therefore, he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Moreover, panchayat register is yet to be recovered. Custodial interrogation seems to be must. In view of this, present petition is dismissed and order dated 6.12.2010 is recalled. (ALOK SINGH) 19.01.2011 JUDGE reena