IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 23313 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Ravipal Singh ......Petitioner Vs State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for petitioner No.1. Mr.Gurcharan Dass, and Mr.Deepak Agnihotri, Advocates, for respondent No.2. **** ORDER The present petition for anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Ravipal Singh in case FIR No. 8 dated 21.01.2010 under Sections 420, 467,468,471, 494, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station “E” Division, Amritsar. Notice of motion was issued on 17th August, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as it has wrongly been mentioned in the FIR that he has solemnized his marriage with some other lady whereas no such marriage has ever taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with the complainant and is also ready to Crl.Misc. No. M- 23313 of 2010 [2] compensate her. The petitioner is having two small children from the complainant who are studying in Doon Public School. Learned counsel for the petitioner while recording his contention at the time of issuing notice of motion, stated that there was possibility of compromise and accordingly complainant was directed to be present in the Court. With the efforts of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was tried to be settled for remaining in their matrimonial life. The complainant while present in the Court on 4th October, 2010 submitted that she was ready to settle the dispute with the petitioner if some assurance is given as she was apprehending danger to her life. It was also stated by the complainant that a plot was in their joint names but the same has been auctioned by the bank authorities due to non-deposit of loan amount due to them. The petitioner made a statement that he was ready to give an undertaking that the amount which was to be received from the sale deposit on account of auction of the plot, would be deposited in the joint names and same would not be claimed by him. By showing willingness from both sides, the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail and directed to join the investigation vide order dated 4th October, 2010. The case came up for hearing and it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that P.O. Proceedings are pending against the petitioner which were never mentioned in the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner was declared P.O. vide order dated 16th August, 2010 and this fact was never brought to the notice of the Court whereas notice of motion was Crl.Misc. No. M- 23313 of 2010 [3] issued on 17th August, 2010 and the petitioner was already declared as Proclaimed Offender and this fact was intentionally concealed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant has also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had solemnized his marriage with some other lady. The petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing Crl.Misc.No.M-12756 of 2010 for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11th May, 2010. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner had forged death certificate of the complainant whereas she was alive and an affidavit was also submitted to the Passport Authorities with regard to entry of name of his second wife and subsequently the Passport was cancelled as the same was found to be bogus one based on forged documents. This conduct of the petitioner itself shows that not only he had played fraud with the Passport Authorities and his wife by showing her dead but he had also concealed certain material facts from the Court as he was already declared Proclaimed Offender when the application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed but it was not mentioned in the application. One day prior to the date of issuing notice of motion, he was declared Proclaimed Offender and this fact was intentionally concealed from this Court to get the interim bail. It has been held in many judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as various High Courts that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of extra-ordinary character and that should be exercised Crl.Misc. No. M- 23313 of 2010 [4] only in exceptional cases. Moreover, limitations have been imposed in Section 437 Cr.P.C. that petitioner must make out a special case for exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. In the present case, no case of special circumstance or of exceptional nature has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and moreover, the petitioner has played fraud with the Passport Authorities as well as with his wife by showing her dead and had also concealed certain material fact with regard to initiation of PO Proceedings against him which was not mentioned in the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE November 19, 2010. raghav