CRM-M-30855 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-30855 of 2011 Date of Decision:04.11.2011 Sahab Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.434 dated 10.8.2011 under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the ITP Act’) and Sections 420, 473, 120B, 180, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case on the disclosure statement of Nisha Talwar (prima accused), who had alleged that “Sahab Singh ASI helps me in this business and took commission for the Mukhbari”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Nisha Talwar was nursing a grudge against the petitioner as the petitioner while posted at Police Station Kurukshetra in 2009 had given information to the Police about her illegal activities in the area on which a raid was conducted and Nisha Talwar and other accused were arrested and a case in that regard was registered. He has submitted that the words which have been uttered against the petitioner by Nisha Talwar in her disclosure statement dated 12.8.2011 are not recorded in CRM-M-30855 of 2011 - 2 - regular spacing and rather squeezed in between the signature of the witness and Nisha Talwar and the line is lying incomplete in her statement. He further submits that there is no other allegation against the petitioner except for the aforesaid two lines and insofar as his own disclosure statement is concerned that has not been signed by him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 7.9.2011 and he is neither a previous convict nor any other case is pending against him. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application but he could not justify the incomplete disclosure statement and the insertion of the aforesaid two lines which has become the basis for the arrest of the petitioner which is apparently squeezed in the statement of Nisha Talwar and is not in regular spacing.` After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 04, 2011 JUDGE Vivek