CRL.M.NO.13860-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.M.NO.13860-M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 13.7.2010 Anil Kumar .....Petitioner vs. State of U.T, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for UT Administration with Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant. JASWANT SINGH, J Crl.M.No.34582 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.34581 of 2010 Present application has been filed by the applicant for impleadment of the complainant as respondent No.2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, I do not find any ground to allow the same. Dismissed. Crl.M.No.13860-M of 2010 Prayer in this petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.144 dated 20.4.2010, under Sections 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Sector 17, Chandigarh. Learned counsel has submitted that the complainant(Rikash Kumar) is real cousin of the petitioner and is using pressure tactics such as lodging of the present FIR in order to settle the property dispute between CRL.M.NO.13860-M of 2010 #2# the family members including him. It is submitted that there are as many as 11 cases pending between the parties. Learned counsel has submitted that the allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner by introducing a fictitious person, namely, Rahul Pandey purchased a Lancer Car, Model 1999 on 10.11.2008, owned by M/s Jain Trading Company (for short “the firm”) and subsequently sold it to one Sukhwinder on 24.2.2009. It is contended that the petitioner was a partner in the firm and the said Lancer Car in the course of business was used and remained with the petitioner and the same was transferred in his name by the partners of the firm. Learned counsel for UT Administration submits that in pursuance of interim orders passed by this Court on 12.5.2010, petitioner has joined investigation, however, he remained un-cooperative. He further submits that as per investigation, the petitioner was never a partner in the firm and aforesaid Lancer Car owned by M/s Jain Trading Company was shown to be purchased by the petitioner on the basis forged and fabricated documents by introducing one Rahul Pandey, whose identity still remains unknown. He submits that even the subsequent purchaser Sukhwinder Singh could not be arrested till now. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of serious allegations of forgery, fabrication, cheating and impersonation by the petitioner and others by introducing a fictitious person, namely, Rahul Pandey, I find that no case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail is made out. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary as recovery of documents are yet to be effected from the petitioner. Dismissed. July 13, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE