Sanjay Lekhi v. State Of Punjab
!
"#$# %& '
()*+,
& -./0/
/
!"
# $ %%%
/,1.2& & '
('"
) (
" *+, )) # ( " '( ( " '-./ 0123 '
" *23 104 *52 *06 *04 *0, *41.
) 1,02
( "
!
/ 1
" ( ")##
7 "#( # "#(
( $(('
7 77 ' )( 89 ()
" !7
( " (' 7$'#7 ' 7
'/ :9;191*6+<5
(( 7
# "9""= '
(7>" !
? ! ((' ('7 "9 "" #7 " () " "
(( " ((!(( 7 # ' " .? 7"" '
-. 9" !"7
"" # :
= ' 7$'' #
" () ' '7
? #= 7 "" # :
& ""= # :
( &91 " ( () .! ' " ' ! 7 '
" )
( " ' 9 ( # ( @'
55 525*
. '("( # )( 89 ()
( > #( (
# 5213 (( # '54 52137' "!" 54 A ( 7 "9"" "#( & "#&91 "
'7 '
A (( #( "
" A !#"
! ' A " ( ? / "! "#
# "
' ! > 9 (
+
( 9 "( ! #(' "" ' ( ?
# @ )## ( )
'
-. .7!( "# &91? # "#( 77 ' > ""#7
# = :
& "9"" 7$' '
# # # :
#"9""= & <'
" '&917 ? &917 ' 7((*3 &91 #7# '# .7!!( ? ((7
B9 &91
' 7 '(89) -'"#7 7
& "#( "" #7 ( ? "" & " (
# (
& ' !((7
4.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
5.
The petitioner who was posted as a Clerk in the office of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and in pursuance of that criminal conspiracy Form TS-1 pertaining to the property bearing No. B-XI-1453/2 situated at Ruri Mohalla,
Ludhiana was issued in the name of co-accused Ekta Kashyap by transferring the same from the name of co-accused Amit Bhatia who is husband of Ekta Kashyap. Apparently this was done to evade the payment of Government Exchequer/requisite expenses of the registration and with intent to cause financial loss to the Government. As per the status report, 49 copies of TS-1 from the book containing pages/leaves starting from Sr. No. 972101 to 972200 were found to be missing and this book was in possession of the petitioner. The co-accused Amit Bhatia and Ekta Kashyap have not been able to give any satisfactorily reply about the manner in which they had procured Form TS-1 without producing any proof of ownership. Seal of Municipal Corporation is also shown to have used in an illegal manner on this document.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and thorough investigation is required for eliciting the truth. It is well settled that c ( " ?( !( # ( ? '"7 7((""7 !
) ( # " '" ( .t is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discussion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
7.
. 7! "( ! # ! (("> # "
8.
" # # '
( " "
3
/4
'
()*+,