IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 1518 of 2001 Date of Decision : February 06, 2009 Balkar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Shinder Pal Singh, ASI, Incharge CIA Staff and others ....Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000 was registered at Police Station City Ferozepur under Sections 342, 382, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. In the said FIR no one was named as an accused. Instead, the accused were described by their appearances. During the investigation of the said FIR, the police came to the conclusion that Shingara Singh, brother of the petitioner, was one of the three accused. Fearing that the petitioner might not be arrested in the aforementioned FIR, he filed an application for anticipatory bail, which came up for hearing before this Court on 2.1.2001, when notice was issued to the C.O.C.P. No. 1518 of 2001 -2- State of Punjab for 18.1.2001 and till then the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. The said petition came up for final hearing on 1.2.2001, when ASI Tarsem Pal, Police Station City Ferozepur reported that the petitioner was not required in the case. In view of the said statement, the application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as infrucutous. On 11.2.2001, ASI Shinder Pal Singh, Incharge, CIA Staff, Abohar, along with a police party was said to be proceeding in a jeep on bye-pass, Hindu Mal Kot, when he noticed a person going on foot. On seeing the police party, the said person frightened and turned back. This aroused suspicion in the mind of ASI Shinder Pal Singh, who after stopping the jeep, apprehended that person, who, on enquiry, told that he was Balkar Singh son of Pritam Singh caste Rai Sikh, resident of New Abadi, Islamabad, Gali No. 1, City Fazilka. The personal search of Balkar Singh led to recovery of two gold chains, which were wrapped in a handkerchief, from the internal pocket of the pant worn by Balkar Singh. He was asked about the ownership of the gold ornaments but he failed to produce any material. His answers were found to be unsatisfactory. The police suspected that the articles recovered were stolen property. Accordingly, Ruqa was prepared by ASI Shinder Pal Singh on 11.2.2001 at 4.15 P.M., on the basis of which, FIR No. 35 was registed at Police Station City Abohar on 11.2.2001 at 4.45 P.M. under Section 411 IPC. Balkar Singh was, thereafter, formally arrested in the C.O.C.P. No. 1518 of 2001 -3- said FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having made a declaration before the Court that the petitioner was not wanted as an accused in FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000, the police had falsely implicated the petitioner by registering another FIR, i.e. FIR No. 35 dated 11.2.2001 and, therefore, committed contempt of this Court. It has also been stated that the gold ornaments said to have been recovered from the petitioner were, thereafter, connected by the police with the first FIR, i.e. FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was never arrested in FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000 and was arrested only on 11.2.2001 in FIR No. 35, which was a separate and distinct case from FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000. The first FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000 was registered at Police Station City Ferozepur. There is no material on the file that the petitioner has ever been arrested in the said FIR. The second FIR, i.e. FIR No. 35 dated 11.2.2001 registered under Section 411 IPC relates to Police Station City Abohar. On the basis of the recovery, which was said to have been made from the petitioner, he was booked for an offence under Section 411 IPC. Mere fact that the recovery shown to have been made from the petitioner may have been later on connected with FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000 does not mean that the petitioner’s arrest in FIR No. 35 dated 11.2.2001 amounted to his arrest in FIR No. C.O.C.P. No. 1518 of 2001 -4- 130 dated 30.10.2000. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents backtracked from the statement made in this Court on 1.2.2001 that the petitioner was not required to be arrested in FIR No. 130 dated 30.10.2000 registered at Police Station Ferozepur City. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) FEBRUARY 06, 2009 JUDGE satish