High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24858/2016allowed

Malkit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2017-01-11Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-24858 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 11, 2017 Malkit Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Surinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

None for respondents No.2 to 4.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.27 dated 01.06.2016 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition. However, none appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 despite service.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the main allegation against the Vineet Gulati 2017.01.12 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-24858 of 2016 -2petitioner is that he forged some signatures for transfer of tube-well connection which was in the name of Parkash Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner purchased the land from Parkash Singh and the tube-well connection is in that very land and Parkash Singh is not the complainant in the FIR. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from him. The case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner is not required for interrogation or investigation purposes. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody till the disposal of the case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. The order dated 25.07.2016 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. January 11, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.01.12 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh