IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-25634 of 2009
Date of decision : October 07, 2009
Bharpur Singh and another ....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. KS Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. M.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with
Mr. HR Nohria, Advocate, for the complainant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Bharpur Singh and Resham Singh have filed this petition for
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 94 dated 2.9.2009 under sections 420,
465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
According to the prosecution version, both the petitioners who
are brothers obtained copies of jamabandies of 10 farmers and got prepared
documents in connivance with Krishan Chand Bansal for obtaining subsidy
and loan for cultivation of medicinal plants. The farmers came to know of
it when they received letters from Punjab State Medicinal Plants Board
regarding sanction of subsidy and loan. However, six out of ten farmers
have stated that the petitioners had got the loan and subsidy sanctioned with
their consent but four farmers have stated that everything was done without
their consent.
Criminal Misc. No. M-25634 of 2009 -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that
nothing was done by petitioner no. 1 and it was only petitioner no. 2 who
obtained the copies of jamabandies. Learned State counsel, on instructions
from HC Mukhtiar Singh, admits that copies of jamabandies were obtained
by petitioner no. 2 only. Learned counsel for the complainant contended
that both the petitioners along with Krishan Chand Bansal got the
documents prepared for sanction of subsidy and loan.
Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to
express any opinion on merits, petitioner no. 2 does not deserve the
concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the instant petition on behalf
of petitioner no. 2 is dismissed. However, petition qua petitioner no. 1 is
allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioner no. 1 shall be released on bail
to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the
petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required and shall comply
with the conditions specified in section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Presently, petitioner
no. 1 is directed to join investigation on 14.10.2009 at 10.00 AM and
continue to do so as and when required by the police. The instant order
qua petitioner no. 1 shall remain effective till one month after the filing of
charge sheet by the police or till decision of regular bail petition of
petitioner no. 1, whichever is earlier.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
( L.N. Mittal )
October 07, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'