Crl. Misc. No. M-29280 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-29280 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 16, 2011 Panna Lal .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Panna Lal has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.40 dated 25.02.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, complainant Gurnam Singh paid Rs.5,000/- in advance, out of agreed amount of Rs.10,000/-, to Crl. Misc. No. M-29280 of 2011 2 the petitioner to quickly get Birth Certificate of complainant's daughter and after the petitioner gave photostat copy of the Birth Certificate, balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was also paid to the petitioner, but the Birth Certificate was found to be forged one. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner's father instituted criminal complaint Annexure P-1 dated 30.03.2007 against Satnam Singh – brother of Gurnam Singh (complainant) and others and they have been summoned as accused in that case vide summoning order dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-2) and the said complaint is still pending. It is accordingly contended that in view of said enmity between families of the parties, the complainant would not have paid Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that according to the police inquiry, the amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid in January 2009 and photostat copy of the Birth Certificate was given in December 2010 i.e. almost two years after the payment had been made, although the complainant had paid the amount to the petitioner to get the Certificate quickly. It is also submitted that the complainant did not take any action for almost two years. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Onkar Singh, states that pursuant to interim order of this Court, petitioner has since joined investigation. In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any Crl. Misc. No. M-29280 of 2011 3 opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. Interim order dated 26.09.2011 is made absolute. December 16, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE