Criminal Misc.No. M- 10752 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 10752 of 2010 Date of decision:- 18.5.2010 Raj Karan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with HC Santokh Singh. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.398 dated 03.12.2009, under Sections 420, 419, 468 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he had purchased the jeep bearing No.P.N.T./5609 from the registered owner-Kesar Singh. Further allegations are that he allegedly sold the same to Joginderpal on the basis of forged power of attorney dated 12.6.2007 allegedly executed by Kesar Singh-registered owner, whereas no such power of attorney stated to have been executed by Kesar Singh in favour of Joginder Singh. The said jeep met with accident on 14.6.2007. Further allegations are that for fabrication of power of attorney, petitioner-accused purchased the stamp paper and however the said power of attorney does not contain the signature of owner-Kesar Singh. Hence, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is required to know the details of modus operandi adopted by the present Criminal Misc.No. M- 10752 of 2010 -2- petitioner-accused in forging and fabricating the power of attorney. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Joginder Pal and Kesar Singh have connived each other and now Kesar Singh is denying execution of power of attorney in favour of Joginder Pal. I have considered all the facts of the case. The allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature as he had forged power of attorney on behalf of Kesar Singh in favour of Joginder Singh. In view of these facts, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused Raj Karan. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused Raj Karan is dismissed. May 18, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE