CRM-M No. 14557 of 2011 **** Bharat Bhushan v. State of Punjab Present: Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Abrol, AAG, Punjab. **** This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 18 dated 03.04.2011, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga. The allegations are that a smuggler was apprehended. He had a mobile phone under a different name. The petitioner was sought to be implicated on the ground that he had sold the sim card without ascertaining the identity of that smuggler. On 19.05.2011 the following argument was raised:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a per the document Annexure P-4 mobile number in question was activated on 28.07.2008 but as per the certificate Annexure P-2 the petitioner joined the concerned Sachdeva Teleworld only on 01.01.2009 i.e. much after the mobile number in question was activated. He has thus argued that the petitioner is being falsely implicated and has nothing to do with the release of the said mobile connection. Learned Deputy Advocate General seeks a short adjournment to enable the Investigating Officer to file an affidavit regarding this specific assertion.” Learned AAG, on instructions from SI Manjeet Singh, states that as per affidavit filed it is stated that on 20.07.2008 the petitioner was working as a retail distributor under the Sachdeva Teleword. However, learned AAG states that there is no record in this regard. Consequently in CRM-M No. 14557 of 2011 -2- my considered opinion, after considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the above noted factual position, it is not in the interest of justice to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner appear before the investigating officer on 06.12.2011 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. to and on any other date on which his presence is required by the investigating officer. On his appearance the investigating officer shall release him on bail to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE November 26, 2011 sunita