High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Subhash And Another vs State Of Haryana on 5 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash And Another vs State Of Haryana on 5 March, 2009
 CRM No. M-6336 of 2009                      1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                CRM No. M-6336 of 2009 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: 05.03.2009

Subhash and another                                   ...Petitioners

                             Versus

State of Haryana                                      ...Respondent


CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:      Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Rajan Gupta, J.

The petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in a case

registered against them under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC at

Police Station Central, District Faridabad, vide FIR No.389 dated 28th

July, 2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the

entire dispute was civil in nature and an FIR had been wrongly

registered by the police as no offence was made out. According to the

counsel, petitioners will not be required for custodial interrogation and

thus they are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.

A perusal of the FIR, however, shows that allegations

against the petitioners are very serious in nature. According to the FIR,

the accused had forged a General Power of Attorney on behalf of the

complainant and had alienated substantial land belonging to her in

favour of some other persons.

CRM No. M-6336 of 2009 2

In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the

allegations that the petitioners forged a General Power of Attorney and

used the same for alienating the land of the complainant, I am of the

considered view that they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest

bail. In fact, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary

for taking the investigation to its logical end.

I, therefore, find no ground to grant the concession of

anticipatory bail. The petition is thus dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
March 05, 2009
‘rajpal’