Crl.M.No.M-32196 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-32196 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2010 Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms.Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.57295 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-32196 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.139, dated 4.5.2010, under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. This is second application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. The first application for anticipatory bail was got dismissed as withdrawn by learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length, on 15.10.2010. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he in connivance with co-accused, i.e.,Patwari Halqa entered Rapat No.198, dated 10.3.2009 without following the due process of law. Matter was enquired into by Tehsildar Sania. It came during enquiry that the entry was made in the absence of concerned Patwari and that he also made demand of Crl.M.No.M-32196 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ` 50,000/- as bribe. Regular departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner-accused. Though it has been mentioned in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, that he was placed under suspension, however, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has since been reinstated. However in view of serious allegations against the petitioner- accused, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to him. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Rajesh Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge