Crl.M.No.M-26909 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-26909 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 14, 2010 Saroj .....Petitioner v. The State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.48018 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-26909 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.222, dated 31.8.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that some class IV employees of SC category were to be employed in Murthal University. A letter bearing No.1156/PSM dated 23.8.2010, written by the Director General of Police, Chandigarh, was received in the Police Station, Murthal, mentioning therein that the fraud has been committed by the petitioner. A letter was received in the Murthal University recommending the name of petitioner for her appointment as Class IV employee from the office of Chief Minister, Haryana. However, it was found that the letter was a forged one. Crl.M.No.M-26909 of 2010 (O&M) -2- It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an illiterate lady and she is having no knowledge about the said letter. However, in the letter the name of petitioner has been recommended for her appointment. Hence, her custodial interrogation is necessary for further investigation of the case to know about the source of the said letter. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Saroj for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 14.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge