Crl.M.No.15861-M of 2008 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.15861-M of 2008 Date of Decision : 2.7.2008. Avtar Singh ..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.A.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner has prayed for the grant of anticipatory/blanket bail in case any FIR is registered against the petitioner by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.3. Counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner was allotted quarter in Commando Complex, Phase XI, Mohali being an employee of Commando Battalion. The petitioner was transferred from Commando Battalion to GRP and later on was posted on deputation with Punjab Police Housing Corporation w.e.f. 1.9.2007. It is alleged that after his transfer, respondent No.3 had issued a notice to him to vacate residential quarter against which the petitioner had replied that he may be allowed to reside in the quarter as he is covered under the 5% quota reserved for the Punjab Police Housing Corporation Employees as per notification dated 24.2.2000 issued by Director General of Police. However, it is alleged that on 30.11.2007, order was passed by respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter and to pay market rent of Rs.6791/-. Counsel for the Crl.M.No.15861-M of 2008 -2 - petitioner has contended that the petitioner had challenged that order before this Court by way of writ petition in which notice of motion has been issued and stay has been granted but respondent No.3 is threatening him to withdraw the writ petition or he will falsely implicate him in some case. It is also alleged that the petitioner during his posting at Police Public School, Commando Complex had maintained accounts of the school and thereafter received communication from the Commandant stating that differences have been found in the accounts which need to be explained by him whereas the petitioner had attended the internal audit and clearly explained the differences and even was given clearance by the department. On these pretexts, the petitioner prays for anticipatory/blanket bail. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner can not be accepted in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Tirath Singh Sobti Vs. The State of Punjab 1978 CLR (Pb. &Har) 250 and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adi Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303, Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 608, Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 7 SCC 558, Narinderjit Singh Sahni Vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 210, Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibia Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it was concluded that Section 438 Cr.P.C. did not authorise the grant of blanket anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the prayer made by the petitioner is misconceived and is hereby rejected. The petition is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 2.7.2008 Judge Meenu