CRM-M25320 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M 25320 of 2009 Decided on 06.10.2009 Jagmail Kaur and another --Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present:Mr: Deepak Aggarwal,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.G.B.S.Gll,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 97 dated 27.8.2009, registered under Sections 420,467,468, 120-B,471 IPC, at Police Station, Nathana, District Bathinda. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the application of Baldev Singh filed under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against Jagmail Kaur wife of Ajaib Singh (petitioner No.1), Kuldeep Kaur wife of Sukhmandar Singh, Ajaib Singh son of Mehar Singh (non-applicant). The allegations contained in the FIR are that on 26.5.2009, election for the Gram Panchayat of village Lehra Bega, Tehsil and District Bathinda was held in which Jagmail Kaur (petitioner No.1) and her daughter-in-law Kuldeep Kaur (petitioner No.2) CRM-M25320 of 2009 2 filed their nomination papers as contesting candidates in the reserve category since it is required that a candidate who is contesting the election in the reserved category should attach certificate of Scheduled Caste issued by appropriate authority, therefore, petitioner No.1 attached her caste certificate bearing No.2488 dated 13.9.2001 which was, in fact, issued to Budh Singh son of Amar Singh, by Tehsildar and Kuldeep Kaur (petitioner No.2.) filed her caste certificate bearing No.2437 dated 13.9.2001 which was, in fact, issued to Harpreet Kaur wife of Mandar Singh ,resident of Lehra Bega. It is further alleged in the complaint that both of them have erased names of the persons in whose favour the aforesaid certificate Nos. 2488 and 2437 dated 13.9.2001 respectively were issued and subscribed their names therein. Therefore, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences by forging government documents for the purpose of contesting election. Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his order dated 4.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter-alia, argued that the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant out of frustration because both petitioner No.1 and the complainant were elected as Panches and when petitioner No.1.was elected unopposed as Sarpanch, the complainant had filed an election petition which was dismissed in default for non- appearance by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, vide order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the application for restoration of the said election petition too was dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) . It is also submitted that both the petitioners are Mazhabi Sikh. They had attached Scheduled Caste Certificates of their husbands (Annexures P-3 and P-4) CRM-M25320 of 2009 3 and have not committed any cheating muchless forgery in the government record. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was elected as Panch and petitioner No.2. who was her covering candidate had withdrawn her nomination paper. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently argued that it is an apparent case of cheating and forgery as the nomination papers which are attached with the election petition are certificates bearing Nos.2488 and 2437 dated 13.9.2001 respectively, which on enquiry, were found to have been issued to Budh Singh son of Amar Singh and Harpreet Kaur wife of Mandar Singh and not to the petitioners by the Naib Tehsildar, Nathana. Therefore, the offences committed by the petitioners are writ large. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which the allegations are of very serious nature of forging government record and cheating general public who had reposed their faith and confidence in them by electing them to the post of Panch and Sarpanch, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the bail application is hereby dismissed. However, nothing observed here-in-above, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case before the Court below. 06.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge