IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17504 of 2009 Date of decision : September 24, 2009 Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rajinder Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 107 dated 24.5.2009 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B IPC and section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, secret information was received that the petitioner gets fake bills and goods receipts from contractor of Chandigarh and smuggles liquor from Chandigarh to Rajasthan. Police was also informed by the secret informer that the petitioner had affixed false number plates on vehicle No. DL-ILB-0646. Acting on the information, police held nakabandi and signalled the incoming Criminal Misc. No. M-17504 of 2009 -2- vehicle to stop but the driver escaped leaving behind the vehicle. The vehicle was found to contain liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is resident of Delhi whereas information was against Rajinder Singh resident of Bahadurgarh. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Balwant Rai, countered the submission by submitting that the petitioner on interrogation stated that he is permanent resident of Bahadurgarh. This submission has not been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. In addition to it, learned State counsel also contended that the petitioner has given fake address of Delhi in the petition and during interrogation, the petitioner himself gave some other address of Delhi. Learned State counsel also pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the instant petition, the petitioner has alleged that he was neither owner nor driver of the vehicle in question nor connected therewith in any manner but in quashing petition filed by petitioner's co-accused Devinder Singh, affidavit affirmed by the petitioner has been annexed wherein the petitioner has affirmed that he had purchased the aforesaid vehicle and is owner in possession thereof since January, 2009 whereas occurrence of the instant case took place on 24.5.2009. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to comment anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 24, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'