High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daljit Singh @ Jeetu vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh @ Jeetu vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2009
              Crl.M. No. M-34053 of 2008                    -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                               Crl.M. No. M-34053 of 2008
                               Date of decision : 24.3.2009.

                              ...

    Daljit Singh @ Jeetu
                                             ................ Petitioner

                              vs.

    State of Punjab
                                             .................Respondent


    Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri


    Present: Sh. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with
             Sh. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Sh. K.S. Pannu, Assistant Advocate General,
             Punjab.
                 ...

    K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)

As per allegation of the prosecution, the petitioner not only

forged Power of Attorney, but has also forged the Will of one

Gurbax Singh. He has also got burnt the record in connivance with

revenue officials. The gravity of offence does not make out a case for

grant of bail to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody for the last 13 months and on that account he

is entitled to the concession of bail.

I have carefully considered the said submission. From the

perusal of the record, it is revealed that petitioner is accused in the

following four other cases:-

Crl.M. No. M-34053 of 2008 -2-

i) FIR No. 415 dated 6.12.2006 u/s 419, 420, 467, 471, 120-B

IPC P.S. Civil Lines, Amritsar.

ii) FIR No. 319 dated 10.11.2005, u/s 295-A/34 IPC P.S.

Jandiala, District Amritsar

iii)FIR No. 62 dated 27.4.2007 u/s 336/148/149 IPC,

25/27/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Sultanwind, District Amritsar

and

iv)FIR No. 34 dated 15.3.2007 u/s 436, 420, 467, 468,

471/120-B IPC P.S. A-Division, Amritsar.

The petitioner seems to be a habitual offender. So, no ground

for grant of bail is made out.

The petition stands dismissed.

( K.C. Puri )
24.3.2009. Judge
Chugh