Rajwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

Crl.Misc. No.M-14202 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.Misc. No.M-14202 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.5.2015 Rajwinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent ...

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ...

Present :

Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Bhargav, Advocate for the complainant. ...

1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

2. Whether the judgement should be reported in Digest ? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J CRM No.15419 of 2015 Applicant seeks permission to place on record the legible vernacular copy of Annexure P-2 and certified copy of Annexure P-3. Application is allowed as prayed for.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM No.M-14202 of 2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He was not the beneficiary. His name cropped up during investigation and that too only on the basis of his involvement in earlier case alongwith Baljit Singh, which is so mentioned at pages 12 and 13 of the paper book. In this view of the matter, he prays for allowing the present petition. GREESH SAHNI 2015.05.12 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl.Misc. No.M-14202 of 2015 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after careful perusal of the record of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail. It is so said, because he has been found to have fabricated a daily dairy report to the effect that the earlier power of attorney was lost. He knew this, as the petitioner was earlier working in the police department, wherefrom he was dismissed from service. In view of the above and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, noticed herein above, petitioner has not been found entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail. Without commenting any further, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, present petition is dismissed. As per the peculiar facts of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be the compulsive necessity of the investigating agency for conducting an effective investigation. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Dismissed.

12.5.2015 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE GREESH SAHNI 2015.05.12 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh