In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 26979 of 2009 Decided on 24.9.2009. Jagdish -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No.184 dated 04.6.2009, registered under Sections 419,420 IPC, at Police Station, Mohindergarh. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had been taking old age pension by misrepresenting his age. It is alleged that date of birth of the petitioner is 29.12.1954, therefore, he was 50 years of age in the year 2004, whereas he has been claiming old age pension representing his age to be more than 60 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount which he had taken on account of old age pension. He also submits that the petitioner was appointed as Lamberdar on 27.1.2009 by the Collector, District Mohindergarh, whereas case of Bagrawat Singh, father of the complainant was rejected, therefore, he has registered the FIR. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by the CRM-M 26979 of 2009 -2- learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide his order dated 03.9.2009. It appears from the facts of this case that the petitioner is a clever person, who in order to become Lambardar had shown his age to be 50 years having been born on 29.12.1954 because in the matter of selection of Lambardar, generally preference is given to a young person over and above an old candidate and for getting the old age pension, the petitioner had shown his age to be more than 60 years. The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath, therefore, he is apparently an accused of the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. The nature of offence is very serious for which no leniency could be shown . As such, the present petition is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed herein shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 24.9.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge