Criminal Misc.-M No.27514 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 27514 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 20.09.2011 Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.153 dated 12.8.2011 registered under Sections 408/120-B IPC, Police Station City Moga, District Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complain- ant was doing the business of financing vehicles. The petitioner and his fa- ther had purchased two trucks bearing No. PB-29G-8910 and PB-29G-9110. Registration thereof was not transferred in the name of the father of the peti- tioner as loan had not been cleared. The complainant snatched truck bearing No. PB-29G-8910, for which FIR No. 101 dated 4.9.2009 was got registered against the complainant by the father of the petitioner. Anticipatory bail of the complainant and other accused named therein was dismissed by this Court on 3.2.2010 vide order passed in Criminal Misc.-M No. 25868 of 2009. Thereafter, the complainant made application to the Senior Superin- tendent of Police, Moga for conducting inquiry. Reports in two separate inquiries conducted earlier by SHO concerned and DSP (D), Moga, were contradictory. Thereafter, SSP, Moga conducted inquiry and recommended filing of application of the complain- ant herein. However, subsequently on direction by the DGP, Punjab, inquiry was entrusted to SP (D) Faridkot, who found that the FIR got registered by Criminal Misc.-M No.27514 of 2011 2 the father of the petitioner was false. The allegations in the present FIR are that accessories including trolley etc. of truck bearing No. PB-29G-9138 are yet to be recovered and further a truck bearing No. PB-29G-9110 is in pos- session of the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the interim order passed by the civil court in a civil suit filed by the father of the petitioner, whereby the defendant therein, namely, the complainant has been restrained from taking forcible and illegal possession of truck bearing No. PB-29G- 9110. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the FIR earlier got registered by the father of the petitioner was found to be false on inquiry by SP (D), Faridkot. The petitioner is serving as a Consta- ble in Punjab Police. He was supervising plying of trucks mentioned in the FIR. The complainant had been falsely implicated in the earlier FIR got reg- istered by the father of the petitioner, in which inquiry was got conducted by the DGP, Punjab. However, it is not disputed that reports in different inquir- ies were found to be contradictory. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the earlier FIR got registered by the father of the petitioner against the complainant way back in the year 2009, after rejection of pre-ar- rest bail of the accused therein by this Court, inquiry after inquiry were con- ducted therein. As is evident from the report of the SSP, Moga (Annexure P3), prior to this inquiry, two separate inquiries were conducted by SHO, Police Station City Moga and DSP (D), Moga, reports of which were found to be contradictory. SSP, Moga in his report found the contents of FIR No. 101 dated 4.9.2009 to be false and recommended for filing of application of the accused therein. However, subsequently, on direction of DGP, inquiry was got conducted and it was found that the FIR got registered by the father of the petitioner was false and cancellation thereof has been recommended. Considering the aforesaid material, however, without opining on the merits thereof, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 30.09.2011 at 10.00 a.m. to join investigation and in case of arrest, he Criminal Misc.-M No.27514 of 2011 3 shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Inves- tigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 20.09.2011 sharmila