Surender Singh v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-24850 of 2019 .....

Date of decision:17.07.2019 Surender Singh

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.59 dated 6.4.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and (Section 409 IPC, which was added later on) at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal.

Notice of motion has been issued.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.07.18 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-24850 of 2019 [2] A perusal of the record shows that this is the second petition for anticipatory bail. The first anticipatory bail petition filed by the present petitioner has been withdrawn when the learned State counsel has filed reply in that petition. Now again without any changed circumstances the second anticipatory bail petition has been filed. A perusal of the FIR shows that it was got registered by BDPO against Smt. Halima, Ex-Sarpanch for not handing over the entire record to Panchayat Secretary etc. Later on, it was found that Smt. Halima had handed over the charge to the present petitioner. The signatures of the present petitioner have been got compared from the FSL as argued by the learned State counsel and the same were found genuine which means the record is with the petitioner.

The petitioner has not handed over the same. It is still to be recovered and he is required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

July 17, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.07.18 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh