Crl.M.No.458 of 2011 in Crl.M.No.32284 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.458 of 2011 in Crl.M.No.32284 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Palwinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Indresh Goel, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.458 of 2011 Requests for placing on record copy of order dated 9.11.2010, Annexure P13. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-32284 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.113, dated 12.8.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. This is second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner-accused. His earlier application for anticipatory bail was Crl.M.No.458 of 2011 in Crl.M.No.32284 of 2010 (O&M) -2- dismissed by this Court vide detailed order dated 29.9.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-28771 of 2010. While issuing notice of motion in this second application for anticipatory bail, this Court passed the following order on 2.11.2010:- “Crl.M.No.57480 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-32284 of 2010 Contends that though the present petition is a second petition and however, after dismissal of first petition, petitioner had procured report of alleged forged certificate, Annexure P6 and contends that the same is not a forged one as the same contains signature of Registrar, Birth and Death and that nothing in Annexure P6 is a forged one except that entry of the same was not made in the register. Notice of motion for 22.11.2010.” Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that petitioner had applied for issuance of passport and he had attached a notarized copy of birth certificate as proof of his date of birth. The said certificate was however found fake. Hence, earlier application filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court. However, at the time of issuing notice of motion in the second petition, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the certificate was not a forged one as the same contains signature of Registrar, Birth and Death and that nothing in Annexure P6 is forged one except that entry of the same was not made in the register. However, the said fact was got verified by the Investigating Officer, who filed affidavit to the effect that the certificate is a forged one. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that in another FIR, i.e., FIR No.114 dated 12.8.2010 of the same police station, another accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh, on the similar facts was granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.11.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-27837 of 2010, Annexure P13 and hence, it is contended that case of petitioner-accused is also similar to him. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Crl.M.No.458 of 2011 in Crl.M.No.32284 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Maharshtra and others, 2010 INDLAW SC 1026. Bail application has been opposed by learned State counsel on the ground that the main plea taken by the petitioner-accused, on the basis of which the second application for anticipatory bail was filed, has been found false as the birth certificate was found to be fake one. It is further contended that as per plea of petitioner the fraud was committed by some agent through whom he applied for issuance of passport and that he might have forged the birth certificate. Hence, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary to trap the said agent or other persons involved in this racket of fabricating birth certificates and the petitioner cannot be absolved of his liability simply because he had asked some other person to fill up the form and complete the necessary formalities. It was on these grounds only that application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner-accused was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. There is force in the submission of learned State counsel. No fresh ground for admitting the petitioner-accused to anticipatory bail is made out when his earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2010. Rather his custodial interrogation is necessary to arrive at truth and to trap the persons involved in fabricating birth certificates. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Palwinder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge