CRM No.M-33330 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-33330 of 2010 Date of Decision:15.11.2010 Amarjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) By invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner- Amarjit Singh son of Gurdas Ram, has instituted the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co- accused, vide FIR No.17 dated 23.04.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that the Punjab Agriculture University (hereinafter to be referred as “the PAU”) had opened the current account for making the payments/transactions in respect of the Regional Station Bathinda. It revealed that huge sum of money was fraudulently withdrawn vide various cheques, out of the current account maintained by the PAU. One of the cheque of Rs.1,75,230/- was later on found to be deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other co- accused cheated the PAU, prepared the false cheques, used the same as genuine CRM No.M-33330 of 2010 2 and withdrawn a huge amount from its account. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, and in the wake of writing of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. Ex facie, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no material against him, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations of cheating and fraudulent withdrawal of the amount in question on the basis of forged and fabricated cheques against the petitioner. Since, the police is yet to unearth the scandal of cheating and fraud and to elicit the truth, so, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case. 7. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 8. So, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation CRM No.M-33330 of 2010 3 and the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this context. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 15, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-33330 of 2010 4 9. Needless to mention that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition.