CRM-M 28251 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 28251 of 2009 Decided on Oct 24,2009. Brij Mohan Jindal -- Petitioner vs. The State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No.43 dated 20.3.2009, registered under Sections 420,465,467,471/477A/ 120-B/119/200 IPC at Police Station, Division No.6, Industrial Area,Ludhiana City. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail vide CRM-M 16403 of 2009, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2009 , which is reproduced below:- “This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case FIR No.43 dated 20.3.2009 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 477A, 120 B, 119, 200 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Industrial Area, Ludhiana City. CRM-M 28251 of 2009 2 Tersely, the allegations against the petitioner are that he has obtained subsidy from the District Industrial Centre, Ludhiana by showing the production of his industry with effect from 02.10.1992 whereas he had already entered into a production and sold steel vide bill issued on 17.09.1992. In this regard, the petitioner has obtained subsidy of Rs.16,99,200/- which was credited to his loan account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court below. He further argued that the petitioner is on interim bail and has joined the investigation and no recovery is to be effected. He further submitted that cutting, if any, is committed by the Manager Baljinder Singh Kang for that petitioner should not be penalized after 17 years of the occurrence. Counsel for the State has submitted that Manager Baljinder Singh Kang has already been dismissed from service but he has not been arrested so far. The forgery has been committed by the petitioner in connivance with the said Manager, namely, Baljinder Singh Kang and in that process, loss of sum of Rs.16,99,200/- has been caused to the State Exchequer which is to be recovered. . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed” . Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail vide CRM-M 27156 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.10.2009 CRM-M 28251 of 2009 3 in which the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is some error in the petition. He prays for withdrawal of the petition in order to file a better one. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any changed circumstances for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. Oct 24,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge