Pal Singh Bhatti v. State Of Punjab



 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 



  Date of decision: 13.09.2023 Pal Singh Bhatti

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

  



      


  
 


 

****       ! 


1.

Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.43 dated 08.03.2022, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC, at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 78 years old person and suffering from various serious ailments; that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was filed against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 29.07.2021; that in the said complaint, the petitioner furnished bail and surety bonds, but he could not arrange the surety himself; that it was the co-accused who after receiving an amount of Rs.15,000/- arranged surety for the petitioner, which was later on found to be fake and the present FIR was registered and that on 15.03.2023, the petitioner has been discharged and the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper-book.

MANGAL SINGH 2023.09.14 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document



 



 



4.

It is a case, where the FIR was got registered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur and while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 10.08.2023 has observed as under:-    

  !

 " #

  !

 "

!

   

$!

! $   $!



 

% & ' (&!

 ! "&

) %"  *&  (&!+ ,!    $  &

&  !

#    ! %#  %- "

!

  (!+ (%   (&!

(!

#  *  #  & 

.
# 

/! + ,!

 

##& 

&  !

 + ,!

  #  % !  !

 !

# 

 !

 %%   $!

!  $!# !&

0



" + ,!  



  "

 + ,! #



-#-%  !

#    ! % 

  "

  & -& + ,!   # &  

!

#    -

%!

 

 !  + 



    "

#  #  !

# 



!

 %   - + (

#   

 #   

# 

 

"

#

  %

 !"

% + 1#  "  $!  "

#

#  # " &  !  %+2+

5.

In the present case, the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons have played fraud with the Court and thus considering the seriousness of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.




       13.09.2023      "   & # (&!

 
 !"


# $

 
%&"



# $
MANGAL SINGH 2023.09.14 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document