CRM-M-16403 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-16403 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 10.08.2009 **** Brij Mohan Jindal . . . . Petitioner VS. The State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent/State **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) 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. 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 CRM-M-16403 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - 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. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 10, 2009 JUDGE vivek