IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17632 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.6.2010 Ashok Khanna .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after November 2009, petitioner is not carrying on business in the premises in question rather Bhaavya Enterprises is running their business. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that prior to November 2009, although petitioner was dealer of products of M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., however, despite continuation of the agency he is not carrying on business. He further argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner which can be said to be a case property. I have carefully examined the record. From the perusal of FIR, it can be said that petitioner is selling products in the name of Soni brand while those products are not Soni products. However, not only this, petitioner also issued forged warranty cards to the customers and thereby cheated general public as well as Company. FIR is under Sections 420, 465, 468, 469, 471 IPC read with Sections 103/104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. Crl. Misc. No. M-17632 of 2010 2 I am prima facie of the view that custodial interrogation and recovery of forged warranty cards and records are required to be made. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. After order is dictated learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. The petition is permitted to be withdrawn. (ALOK SINGH) 23.6.2010 JUDGE reena